{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_62961/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_62961","id":"gutenberg_62961","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/62961","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: History - Warfare","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Sociology","Great Britain -- Social conditions","Moral conditions","Social problems"],"text":"THE\n TYRANNY OF SHAMS\n\n BY\n JOSEPH McCABE\n\n NEW YORK\n DODD, MEAD & COMPANY\n 1916\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\nTHIS book is a frank criticism of most of the dominant ideas and\ninstitutions of our time: a confession of faith in nearly all the more\ndaring heresies which hold, so to say, the firing line of our\nliterature: a conception of a new social order and new planetary\narrangement. It is therefore candidly egoistic, and I should like to\nexplain the circumstances in which it was designed and written.\n\nIt was conceived, and much of it was written, during the long voyage\nfrom Australia to England. At that time I had issued, if I may include\nthe introduction to English readers of foreign writers, some fifty\npublications, and in these I had generally described remote periods of\nhistory, or even remoter periods of the earth's story or distant\nregions of the universe. Many had asked me to tell them things more\nintimate and important than the way in which stars were formed, or the\nmanners of extinct Dinosaurs and ancient empresses: asked if thirty\nyears' study of philosophy, science, and history had given me no\ninterest in, or light upon, the problems of the hour. In Australasia\nthis request was made more insistently than ever. Our ancient\nprejudices have been transplanted into the soil of the new world, and\nthey have thriven there, like the gorse, the sparrow, the rabbit, and\nso many other pests which sentimental colonists have introduced in\norder to remind them of \"home.\" But new ideas also have been\nimported, and they find a rich soil in the free, unconventional,\nenterprising colonial mind. Men and women are asking the same\nquestions there as in London and New York.\n\nThe general drift or implication of these questions obsessed me daily\nduring the slow traverse of the Southern Ocean. Day after day the\ngreat liner visibly rounded this vast ball of metal which we call our\nearth; and to me there is no more impressive symbol than this of the\npower and the future of man. Some complain that at sea they feel the\nearth and man and man's concerns made trivial by the great fires\nwhich blaze through the darker sky. But largeness is not greatness,\nand a vast prairie in some inaccessible region does not make less\nprecious the little plot of earth at your door that you can make\nbeautiful. Your predominant feeling, when you round the globe and see\nwith your own eye its limitations, is one of power. This sphere, you\nfeel, is the principality of man; and there never was a power so\ndespotic and far-reaching as the power of a united race would be. You\nfed as if the earth could be embraced in the arms of a giant, and\nhumanity is the giant. If men were agreed in their designs, the earth\nwould be as clay in the hand of the potter. It would prove as passive\nand tractable as the child's ball of plasticine--if all, or the\ngreat part of, men and women were agreed as to the shape it was\ndesirable to impose on it. In our age differences of ideal restrain\nthe hand and prevent us from giving a fairer face to the earth. The\npower of a united mankind would be something akin to omnipotence.\nEvery man or woman who has seen the earth with this larger vision must\nseethe with impatience to end this conflict of old traditions and new\nideas which paralyses our hands; to do what he or she can to\naccelerate that final harmony of conviction which will set free the\nfingers of the Great Potter. That is the controlling sentiment of this\nlittle book.\n\nIt happens that, before the book reaches the public, one of those\ntraditions which it assails has spread a ghastly devastation over the\nface of the earth. For nearly twenty years I have used my slender\nopportunities as speaker and writer to denounce the military machine:\nto imagine the mighty resources we waste on militarism and war\ntransferred to those enterprises which seek to brighten the earth and\nmake the hearts of men and women lighter. Now the little sermon, which\nmany feeble voices were preaching, is taken up by an orator whose\nvoice thunders from pole to pole, whose words are blood-curdling\nrealities. Ten thousand million sterling, perhaps, poured into the sea\nin eighteen months: ten million men, perhaps, prematurely blasted off\nthe earth or stricken for life: and a trail of blood and tears and\nmisery that all the mighty fertility of the earth will take a\ngeneration to obliterate! Nor does this outpour of horror merely mean\nthat _one_ feature of our life needs reconsideration. We could not\nhave retained this military machine, with its ever-present danger of\nan appalling calamity, if our minds were generally sane, alert,\nunclogged by shams.\n\nOne inquires how it is that a generation which boasts of its wisdom\nand humanity can retain this worst survival of barbarism, and one\nfinds that the evil is connected with a dozen other evils and\nprotected by a general mental debility. The habit of tracing this\ncalamity to the peculiar criminality of another nation, and dwelling\nonly on our own heroism and self-sacrifice in meeting this menace, is\nin itself a very grave danger. We may be entirely certain that, as\nlong as we retain the military machinery for settling quarrels, there\nwill be wars. How came the machinery to linger amongst us in the\ntwentieth century? At once we light upon a dozen other disorders of\nour life. This remissness in civilising international intercourse\nargues a grave indifference to a most important task on the part of\nour political servants, and an equally grave absence of pressure and\ndirection on the part of their supporters. It reveals a dangerously\nslovenly condition of our industrial world, a very serious defect in\nour educational system, a standing menace in the encouraged\nthoughtlessness of the mass of our people, a general flabbiness,\nhaziness, and an\u00e6mia of what may be called the intellectual part of\nour public life.\n\nThis is true of all nations,--it may be the turn of the United States,\nor Norway, or Argentina tomorrow,--but it is most seriously true of\nEngland. Do not let us fuddle our minds with the kind of rhetoric one\naddresses to schoolboys. We have, in the first year of the war,\nbetrayed a sluggishness, a lack of foresight and initiative, a\nfeebleness of organisation, which ought to sober any race, however\nwealthy. Our Government knew, or ought to have known, since the spring\nof 1912, that just this war was threatening us; and, when it occurred,\nthey made a virtue of the fact that we were \"the least prepared\nnation in Europe.\" They took nine months to begin to organise our\nresources, or to perceive that it was necessary to do so. Plainly,\nthere is something profoundly, comprehensively wrong with our public\nlife. We shall \"muddle through,\" because we have the resources,\nand because the Allies outnumber their opponents by fifty per cent.\nBut if in a future war we are compelled to face a numerically equal\nopponent, England will, if she retains these faults, see her royal\nstandard in the dust. As it is, the cost of our ineptitude will be\nprodigious.\n\nSo I am confirmed in my design to declare what seems to me to be wrong\nwith our life. I choose the form of a direct challenge of old\ntraditions mainly because they so oppress and benumb the public mind\nthat new ideals do not get a fair consideration. But it will be found\nthat behind the series of challenges there is a series of\naffirmations, and these make up a constructive ideal of life. Probably\nfew will accept this ideal in its entirety, though each chapter\nadvocates a reform which has millions of adherents. It is, however,\nnot based on any 'ism, least of all on dogmatism. There is a view\nof, or attitude toward, life expounded in the first chapter, and\nbehind each particular claim. But each section deals with a specific\ndepartment of life and must find its justification within the limits\nof that department. If any regret that the work does not embody a\nprofound philosophy of life, I must reply that I passed through\nphilosophy thirty years ago, and came out into science and history in\nsearch of reality: and that philosophers do not seem to me to be\neither agreed among themselves or in any close relationship to the\nhuman problems I discuss.\n\nMany will advise me, too, that a man would do well to conceal the more\noffensive of his heresies, in order to gain a more patient hearing for\nthe others. That is the usual and prudent practice, no doubt; but this\nbook has been written in a mood of fiery impatience with untruth, and\nthis has forbidden compromise. Night by night, as I sit on the deck of\nthe ship, I watch the dark purple pall drop swiftly over the last\nflush of the tropical sky; and I know that, each night, it shrouds the\nfaces of thousands of men, women, and children whose chance of\nhappiness is gone for ever. We are arguing to-day about man's\nailments just as the Greeks were arguing in the Agora at Athens two\nthousand years ago, or as men argued in the garden of Plato or of\nEpicurus. Meantime almost countless millions have lived in pain and\nsqualor, and died in delusive hope, under the curse of those ancient\ntraditions which we will not discard. Therefore I am impatient: I\ncannot sit in quiet enjoyment of the sunshine that is granted me. It\nwill be found that no man appraises more highly than I the advance we\nhave made in modern times, and that I nowhere exaggerate the darker\nfeatures of life. If at times I write fiercely, cynically, even\nbitterly, it is not from pessimism, but from fulness and fire of\noptimism. My controlling thought is, as I said, a consciousness of our\npower.\n\nThere are two types of people into whose hands this book may fall. The\nfirst is the man or woman whose nerves must not be disturbed by the\nspectacle of the misery of less fortunate beings: who finds life good,\nand instinctively resents any proposals to tamper with its\nfoundations. These people are no more open to blame, as a rule, than\nthe prophet is entitled to praise for his ardour. We do not choose our\ntemperament, whatever else we choose. But one does not appeal to these\ncomfortable people. They would have refined and pleasant things about\nthem always, and they shrink from the vaults where, they dimly know,\nugly and sordid and writhing things are crowded together: lest their\nglance fall on some yellow and distorted face whose hollow cheeks, or\neyes bloodshot with pain or brutality, would disturb the even pleasure\nof their lives. So be it. Let it be written in stark letters on their\nmarble stones, when the last peach has dropped from their relaxing\nfingers: My ideal was to enjoy life, and to let the devil take the\nhindmost.\n\nDo not let me be misunderstood. The enjoyment of life is the supreme\nideal advocated in this book. I loathe asceticism, either Christian or\nStoic. But I write for the second type of man or woman: the people who\nare strong and healthy enough to enjoy every pleasure that life\naffords, yet keep some thought for the unhappiness of others: who\nthink it a normal part even of a pleasant and refined life, especially\na leisured life, to spare some hours for seeking how the world may be\nimproved for less fortunate folk: who, precisely because they love the\nsunlight, ask if it cannot be devised that all men and women and\nchildren shall have a larger share of it. Their chief difficulty is\nthat, unhappily, the new prophets are as discordant as the old. A few\ncenturies ago, when you crossed London Bridge, or the Pont Neuf at\nParis, or the Ponte Vecchio at Florence, a score of rival quacks or\ncharlatans (in the literal sense) cried in your ears the virtues of\ntheir conflicting remedies. To-day just so many conflicting social\nphysicians cry their wares in the streets. They oppose each other\nalmost as bitterly as they oppose the older traditions. How shall a\nbusy man or woman decide among them? What fixed and unalterable\nprinciple, in this world of dissolving creeds, can you adopt for the\ntesting of their truth or untruth?\n\nA very grave and sincere difficulty. Therefore, again, I have chosen\nto attack what seem to me to be shams: which I would define as\nuntruths that the millions venerate as truths. The work of reform will\nproceed very slowly and very precariously until these are resolutely\ndiscredited and dethroned. In each case, it is true, it will be found\nthat the dethronement of an error enthrones a truth; but I insist that\nwe will pay no grave and practical attention to constructive schemes\nuntil we fully realise the blunders and brutalities of our present\ncivilisation. The discord of our social prophets does not excuse us\nfrom perceiving these.\n\nAs to fixed and unalterable principles, it seems to me that two, at\nleast, are not disturbed by the ground-quakes of our time. Perhaps\nthey stand with more conspicuous firmness when so many other\n\"eternal verities\" have fallen. The first is the principle of\ntruthfulness or sincerity. Of this it need be said only that, if there\nare any parts of our human tradition which the larger mind of our age\ndiscovers to be untrue, they ought to be rejected at once; and the\nmore closely they are woven into our social fabric, the more speedily\nand more apprehensively they ought to be torn out. The second and\ngreater principle is the aim of arresting suffering and diffusing\nhappiness as far as possible. I will consider this presently, and\nmerely state here that these chapters have been written solely in the\nname and under the inspiration of that ideal. And if my words are at\ntimes violent, the violence is due solely to a great eagerness for the\nspeedier coming of a brighter and more intelligent age and to a\nsincere abhorrence of cant and shams and all that lengthens this grey\ntwilight of civilisation.\n\n                                                          J. M.\n\n\nCONTENTS.\n\nI. The Philosophy of Revolt\n\nII. The Military Sham\n\nIII. The Follies of Sham Patriotism\n\nIV. Political Shams\n\nV. The Distribution of Wealth\n\nVI. Idols of the Home\n\nVII. The Future of Woman\n\nVIII. Shams of the School\n\nIX. The Education of the Adult\n\nX. The Clerical Sham\n\n\n THE TYRANNY OF SHAMS\n\n CHAPTER I.\n THE PHILOSOPHY OF REVOLT\n\n[This chapter is, with a few alterations, reproduced from _The\nEnglish Review_, October 1914.]\n\nALTHOUGH this work does not embody any system of speculation about\nthe universe, any creed or 'ism or large and abstruse set of\nprinciples, it must begin with a careful study of the phenomenon of\nrevolt. Never before was there such an age of general and feverish\nrestlessness; never was there such quaking of the deepest foundations\nof old institutions, such tottering of thrones and altars. From every\nintellectual centre the disturbing waves radiate. Round London,\nBerlin, and New York the rumbling is habitual. Already they perceive\nit in Tokyo and Peking and Constantinople. Tomorrow it will break on\nthe ear in Teheran and Lhasa. The same questions are asked all over\nthe earth. I have discussed them with millionaires at the Ritz and\nwith great ladies at Claridge's: with students in their universities\nand miners in their cottages: with learned professors in Rome or New\nYork, and with notorious anarchists in obscure corners of Paris: with\nworking girls in Melbourne, with Maoris in Wellington, with Chinese\nand Hindus and alert, full-blooded Africans. I have been invited to\ndiscuss them with a Polynesian princess and to lecture on them in\nFiji, and I have had letters on them from Japanese settlers in British\nColumbia and negro tailors in British Guiana. The same questions\neverywhere: religious doctrines and political forms, education and\nindustry, marriage and woman--almost every ideal and institution we\nhave inherited. And the persistent note that resounds from continent\nto continent is the note of rebellion.\n\nVery different feelings are inspired by this characteristic fact of\nmodern life. To some it seems that this melting of the rigid framework\nof traditions is a welcome sign of spring and growth: that a long\nwinter, which had slowed the blood of the earth and retarded the\ndevelopment of civilisation, is over at last, and little, shapeless,\npromising shoots of new ideals are rising from the loosened soil. To\nothers it seems as if the binding fabric of our civilisation were\nweakened and we were in danger of returning to barbarism. Surely those\nold traditions did hold together the structure of our civilisation?\nAnd surely it is impossible to replace in a few generations the links\nof a planet-wide human society? The shades of dead Memphis and Babylon\nand Nineveh, of Athens and Rome and Bagdad, of Venice and Genoa and\nFlorence, pass before their anxious eyes. In each case, they remind\nus, this same moral, social, and intellectual restlessness preceded\ndeath.\n\nThe inevitable specialism of our age adds to the confusion. Life is a\nconnected whole, yet neither research nor reform can now be other than\nsectional. We devote ourselves to a candid study of some particular\nreform, and we find it a thoroughly reasonable proposal, a deduction\nfrom principles that we are bound to admit. But we have not had\nleisure to discover the indisputable principles of other reforms; and,\nwhen we hear the demand of change and progress rising on one side\nafter another--in the Church, the State, the Home, the School, and so\non--we remark sententiously that rebellion is becoming a fashion, that\nour generation is getting feverish or neurotic, that we must insist on\nauthority somewhere. We repeat plausible phrases about the decay of\nrespect and the wisdom of the race. We fasten on symptoms of\ndisorder--without inquiring very closely whether the disorder is new\nor has been recently aggravated--and we conclude that conservatism is\na social duty: that, at all events, we will admit reform only by the\ninch. We fancy ourselves the guardians of the _palladium_.\n\nQuite apart from purely selfish motives, some of the closest observers\nof our age do differ radically in diagnosis and prescription. The same\nmovements are symptoms of health to one man, symptoms of disease to\nanother. Take the enlargement of divorce, the decay of clerical\nauthority, the industrial revolt, or the rebellion of women. There\nseems to be no common ground left on which the observers may meet with\nany hope of agreement. The old religious and political standards will\nnow hopelessly divide any roomful of educated men and women. You\npropose, perhaps, to fall back on moral standards--the ground on which\n\"all reasonable people\" unite--and someone quotes against you half\na dozen of the most brilliant writers of Europe and America. Hopes and\nlamentations, inspired by precisely the same facts of life, mingle\nconfusedly in our literature, and men and women of large heart and\nlittle leisure seem to be condemned to a sterile perplexity or a\nselfish absorption in business and pleasure. What, at all events, is\nthe meaning or purpose of life? And how is this spreading rebellion\nrelated to it?\n\nFirst let us examine the grounds of the very distressing forecasts of\nthe Conservative. In the vast majority of cases that are worth\nexamining one will find that the pessimism has not very firm\nfoundations. Your dismal prophet is usually a man with an ancient\ngospel which we are discarding, or a new gospel which does not attract\nus. The appeal to the modern world, he realises, must be utilitarian:\nhe must show us that, without him, we perish. So he recklessly heaps\nup before our eyes statistics of crime and consumption and lunacy and\nalcohol: he makes weird and totally inaccurate statements about France\nor the United States or some other country: he marshals the shades of\ndead empires--which seem to have died of a wonderful complication of\nmodern maladies--before us with appropriate rhetoric.\n\nNow to this kind of conservatism, which says that we are decaying, I\nreply that, on every positive test of national health, we are more\nflourishing than we ever were before. Dark as the earth is, it was\nnever brighter than it is to-day, or more full of promise for the\nmorrow. The war is not inconsistent with this general statement, as I\nwill show later. A failure to advance in one direction does not alter\nthe fact that we have advanced in a hundred others; and the gross\nbehaviour of one nation does not destroy the gain that half a dozen\nother nations were ready to behave with a new decency in warfare. As\nto that \"lesson of history\" which is stridently read to us by men\nand women whose command of history is not otherwise conspicuous, I\nwould remind them that the civilisation of dead empires always reached\nits height just before, or at the time when, they began to decay. Does\nanyone suggest that we ought not further to develop our civilisation\nlest we also decay? However, I have sufficiently discussed elsewhere\nthis nonsense about \"laws of history\"; and I will show later that\nthese older empires decayed, not because of their high development of\nintellect and fine sentiment, which leads to revolt, but from the\nnatural defect of those very institutions which our conservatives\ndefend.\n\nWe are not decaying. England is, for every class of its citizens, an\nimmeasurably finer place to live in than it was a hundred years ago. I\nspeak on the strength of a rigorous comparison of the moral and social\nlife of England a century ago with that of modern England, but I\ncannot give the facts here. Let it suffice to make plain that I have\nno sympathy with pessimists and preachers of penance and austerity, of\nany school. The world improves, and improves more rapidly than it ever\ndid before. What stirs one's impatience is the consciousness that we\ncould, and do not, move with infinitely greater speed: that we\ntolerate abuses and shams which insult our intelligence and mock our\nprofessions of humanity.\n\nWhat, then, are the grounds of the optimistic view of this widespread\nrevolt? Let us admit that conservatism, in the sense of an attitude of\ncaution, is a virtue. We would not try unknown drugs on the life of an\nindividual, and we ought not to apply untried recipes to the life of\nforty million people. Yet it is precisely from this medical world that\nwe gather valuable hints of progress. By two centuries of sober and\nheroic labour the physician has brought the greater part of our\nmaladies under control. He would tell you, in private, that he has a\nhope of eventually being able to check all disease and prolong life.\nThe _laissez-faire_ attitude is unknown in medical science. It is\nunknown in our technical and commercial worlds. We have made\nstupendous progress, not by conserving, but by innovating: not asking\nif a machine or a system worked well, but if we could devise a better.\nIn science--in all on which we pride ourselves in modern\ncivilisation--we have followed the progressive principle: we have\ncultivated revolt. Since we began to do so, we have raised the level\nof our civilisation in each generation.\n\nIt is therefore not surprising that many are asking whether we ought\nnot to extend the progressive principle to our religions, moralities,\npolitics, economic systems, schools, domestic and civic and social\ntraditions. It is, in other words, quite natural that there should be\na demand for, not one reform only, but a hundred reforms, in modern\nlife. We are justly, wisely proud of what is distinctive and superior\nin our civilisation: advance, better organisation, economy of waste,\ngreater efficiency. The mystery is that so many would restrict this\nimprovement to what they call the \"lower\" material departments of\nlife, and keep a strict guard against the reformer at the frontiers of\ntheir spiritual or political world. The modern rebellion is a very\nlogical effort to apply these very successful principles to as much of\nlife as is susceptible of improvement.\n\nThis effort, further, coincides with the quite dominant and\ncharacteristic note of modern culture: evolution. We forget sometimes\nthat until half a century ago Europe was oppressed by an entirely\nwrong view of the earth's resources. Plato put a philosophic\nanathema on the earth. This material mass, he said, was a barren\nthing. Order, truth, beauty, love had to come to it, in fitful gleams,\nfrom a world beyond, over which man had no control. We know now that\nPlato was wrong. Order, truth, beauty, and love have developed on the\nearth--they are \"sublunary\" things--and man can control their\nsources and enlarge their proportions. They do not properly make men\ngreat: men make them great. They are as surely under our direction as\nare applied science and commerce and the franchise. We can cultivate\nthem as we now cultivate pansies or sheep. It depends on _us_ if lies\nand disorder and dishonour are to linger among us, or if truth and\njustice and beauty are to prevail.\n\nAgain therefore it is quite natural that we should hear a demand for a\nmore extensive use of these powers of ours. The ships and ploughs and\nilluminants of a hundred years ago were made by the same men, or the\nsame generations of men, as the religions and polities and moralities\nof the time. Why assume that the wisdom of the race was almost\ninfallible in its spiritual and more difficult creations, but capable\nof enormous improvement on the material side? Conservatism, as\nanything more than an attitude of caution and prudence, has not a\nplausible air.\n\nIt is well also to regard the essential or characteristic line of\nhuman evolution. Apart from a few who are caught by a transient\nattempt to glorify instinct, we agree that the development of\nintelligence is one of the main sources of progress. Now this great\nand general awakening of intelligence in recent decades was bound to\nlead to a good deal of challenging of old traditions. That was\nprecisely why the grandfathers of our bishops and peers opposed it.\nThis higher intelligence of the race is now assisted in its decisions\nby a vastly greater and more accurate knowledge of man and the\nuniverse than our grandparents had; and the cheapening of literature\ndimly conveys this knowledge to millions who were left out of account\nwhen the traditional maps of life were drafted. The artisan discusses\neconomics and theology. The Tonga Islander works out mathematical\nproblems. I met a pure-blooded negro, with a European degree in\nphilosophy, who told me that he had been forced to resign his chair in\nan African Mohammedan college because of his advanced ideas! Once I\ndiscussed with a group of miners industrial questions and religion\nfrom twelve to three in the morning, over pots of beer, in a little\ninn on the west coast of New Zealand, a hundred miles from anything\nlike a town.\n\nIt is quite impossible for this spreading and better informed\nintelligence to bow humbly to the ideas of an earlier generation. It\nis going to think for itself, at all events. The old traditions must\nbe revised throughout. Revision is not particularly dangerous except\nto errors. And already we have discovered that our political and\nreligious and social oracles have been teaching a good deal of error.\nWe begin to suspect that many things the divine right of kings and the\neternal torment of the wicked may not be strictly accurate. We had\nbetter reconsider all our ways of living.\n\nThe second permanent strain of human evolution is the development of\nfine sentiment. The notion that the world is becoming more\npreponderantly intellectual, and that progress along our present lines\nmeans a limitation of sentiment, is inaccurate. We are working toward\na healthy equilibrium. Sentimental people--those in whom a starving of\nintellect or disuse of muscle has surcharged the nervous system with\nmorbid energy--will become more balanced, more intellectual. Ancient\nphrases and modern shibboleths will not be able to induce in them an\ninstinctive warmth or agitation: they will have to pass the bar of\nreason before they reach what one might call the executive department\nof personality. But sentiment--deep and healthy feeling--has a\nprecious use in life. The development of fine sentiment is as\nnecessary as the cultivation of reason to the advance of man and of\ncivilisation. We find this illustrated in all the older civilisations\nwhen they reach their highest point. We are picking up this strain of\ndevelopment to-day, and, since civilisation is now too widely diffused\never to perish again, we may assume that it will continue. Now this\nfiner sentiment of our time demands the revision of our traditions and\ninstitutions no less imperiously than our higher intelligence does. We\ncannot leave behind the callousness and brutality of the Middle Ages\nand at the same time retain medieval practices. Intellectually and\nemotionally we are improving, and we must expect that, as our finer\npowers grow, there will be an increasing demand for revision and\nreconstruction. As Mr. Watson finely says:\n\n \"Guests of the ages, at tomorrow's door\n Why shrink we? The long track behind us lies,\n The lamps gleam and the music throbs before,\n Bidding us enter; and I count him wise\n Who loves so well man's noble memories\n He needs must love man's nobler hopes yet more.\"\n\nThis is, I think, a correct analysis of the innovating spirit of\nmodern times. These general considerations to which it is due are\nquite beyond discussion. One feels that one is almost perpetrating\nplatitudes in describing them. In fact, we would to-day find only a\nnegligible number of people who oppose progress and innovation\naltogether. They usually oppose it in one or two departments of life,\nand quite warmly applaud it in others. A Socialist-Ritualist\nclergyman, for instance, fiercely demands advance in the economic\nfield, yet fences his own department of life with the most rigorous\nwarnings against innovating trespassers. A Rationalist-Individualist\nfeels that the Church is the most obvious and urgent field for\ninnovation, and at the same time guards his economic world against it\nwith a flaming sword. A Suffragist pours fiery scorn on our obstinate\nconservatism in regard to the franchise, and then discovers an even\nmore obstinate and entirely sacred conservatism when other women claim\nsomething more than political emancipation. It is this very general\nsectarianism which compels us to review the philosophy of revolt.\nThese principles apply to the whole of life. All our institutions must\nbe critically examined. The searchlight will not injure them if they\nare sound.\n\nBut how comes this sweetly reasonable philosophy to be converted into\nthat passion for reform, that mordant and exasperating attack on\ninstitutions, which gives a special complexion to the literature of\nour time? For precisely the same reason as the invisible electric\ncurrent leaps into incandescence when it passes through the sluggish\nparticles of the filament of carbon or tungsten: resistance. The old\nfaith is growing dim in our minds, and we have a suspicion that the\nthousands of men and women who, each night, terminate a life of pain\nor struggle or burden, wilt never see the sun rise again, on this or\nany other planet. We know that every decade in which we put off, with\nworn and hollow phrases, the abandonment of old errors, sees another\ngeneration pass away with just the same scars and traces of pain as\nthose which scored the hearts of the dead two, and four, and six\nthousand years ago. We are vividly conscious that, quite apart from\nthe myriads whose lives were embittered by poverty, or war, or a\ngalling marriage-yoke, or the tyranny of some old tradition, there are\nfurther and vaster myriads who, whatever comfort they knew, might have\nbeen far happier, and now the sun has gone down on them for ever.\nThere is real and very serious ground for impatience. The acreage of\nsqualor and misery and grossness is still appalling, and on every land\nlies the crushing burden of militarism; and this fearful visitation of\nwar reminds us of the incalculable periodic cost of our folly. The\nsoil of the planet is wet with blood and tears, and a great part of\nthis inhuman rain might be arrested. Much has been done: it is just\nthat which stings. You cannot look back on the darkness from which the\nrace has issued without perceiving that man has the power to transform\nthe face of the earth: without entertaining a reasoned and coldly\nintellectual conviction that a day will yet dawn on this planet when\nlaughter, as of children on May morning, will ring from pole to pole,\nand life, for all its work, will be a holiday. And when this reasoned\nand just belief encounters the sullen or selfish indifference of men\nand women to their creative power, their insensitiveness to the evils\nthat they or their fellows endure, it glows and spits fire.\n\nIt is quite easy to apologise for strong language: much easier than to\njustify the general lack of it. And this impatience cannot be rebuked\nby reminding us that the remedy of some of our ills is very obscure;\nbecause the majority of people are indifferent to the very idea of\nreform. They shoulder burdens which they might at any moment lay aside\nfor ever. Some of the greatest reforms that are pressed on us are not\nobscured by any serious controversy. Yet in every civilised nation the\nmass of the people are inert and indifferent. Some even make a\npretence of justifying their inertness. Why, they ask, should we stir\nat all? Is there such a thing as a duty to improve the earth? What is\nthe meaning or purpose of life? Or has it a purpose?\n\nOne generally finds that this kind of reasoning is merely a piece of\ncontroversial athletics or a thin excuse for idleness. People tell you\nthat the conflict of science and religion--it would be better to say,\nthe conflict of modern culture and ancient traditions--has robbed life\nof its plain significance. The men who, like Tolstoi, seriously urge\nthis point fail to appreciate the modern outlook on life. Certainly\nmodern culture--science, history, philosophy, and art--finds no\npurpose in life: that is to say, no purpose eternally fixed and to be\ndiscovered by man. A great chemist said a few years ago that he could\nimagine \"a series of lucky accidents\"--the chance blowing by the wind\nof certain chemicals into pools on the primitive earth--accounting for\nthe first appearance of life; and one might not unjustly sum up the\ninfluences which have lifted those early germs to the level of\nconscious beings as a similar series of lucky accidents.\n\nBut it is sheer affectation to say that this demoralises us. If there\nis no purpose impressed on the universe, or prefixed to the\ndevelopment of humanity, it follows only that humanity may choose its\nown purpose and set up its own goal; and the most elementary sense of\norder will teach us that this choice must be social, not merely\nindividual. In whatever measure ill-controlled individuals may yield\nto personal impulses or attractions, the aim of the race must be a\ncollective aim. I do not mean an austere demand of self-sacrifice from\nthe individual, but an adjustment--as genial and generous as\npossible--of individual variations for common good. Otherwise life\nbecomes discordant and futile, and the pain and waste react on each\nindividual. So we raise again, in the twentieth century, the old\nquestion of \"the greatest good,\" which men discussed in the Stoa\nPoikile and the suburban groves of Athens, in the cool _atria_ of\npatrician mansions on the Palatine and the Pincian, in the Museum at\nAlexandria, and the schools which Omar Khayy\u00e1m frequented, in the\nstraw-strewn schools of the Middle Ages and the opulent chambers of\nCosmo de' Medici.\n\nWe answer, as men did in all those earlier debates, according to our\ntemperament. One says culture, another character, another happiness,\nanother pleasure, another efficiency. This discussion is often a mere\nexercise of wit, and very often we use a quite arbitrary standard in\nfixing what is \"best,\" or the greatest good. Probably the modern\nmind will put to itself the plain question: \"What is the best\npurpose for the race, in its own interest, to adopt?\" As we are not\nnow clear that there are any other interests to be consulted, this is\nthe obvious form of the question. And when we do put it in this form,\nthe old conflict begins to disappear. We see that a comprehensive\nideal, embracing all the classical answers, commends itself. We want\nmore--we want as much as possible--culture, character, happiness,\npleasure, and efficiency. We want a quicker and fuller development of\nman's highest and richest resources. But, if you look closely into\nit, there is one ultimate and commanding element in this broad ideal.\nIt is happiness. Culture is a necessity of the race and luxury of the\nfew. Character is supremely important, but you have now to prove to\nmen that it is important. We do not bow any longer to arbitrary\ncommands and categorical imperatives and Stoic laws. We have to be\nconvinced that the cultivation of a high type of character will lessen\nsuffering and brighten the earth. Pleasure, again, is, as Epicurus\ninsisted, only a part of a large ideal of happiness. There is, in\nfact, no ground on which you can appeal to the mass of men to-day in\nfavour of cultivation or idealism except this ground that it makes for\ngreater happiness: and on that ground you may safely appeal to the\nwhole race.\n\nSometimes, when you ascend the slopes of a range of hills,--the idea\noccurred to me during a walk from Chamonix to Montanvert,--the mists\nclose round you, and the guiding peaks and contours are lost. Then,\nperhaps, some point breaks through the clouds, and you stride on\nconfidently. This must apply to the most sceptical or nebulous mind of\nour generation. The old dream of a co-operative effort to improve\nlife, to bring happiness to as many minds of mortals as we can reach,\nshines above all the mists of the day. Through the ruins of creeds and\nphilosophies, which have for ages disdained it, we are retracing our\nsteps toward that height--just as the Athenians did two thousand years\nago. It rests on no metaphysic, no sacred legend, no disputable\ntradition--nothing that scepticism can corrode or advancing knowledge\nundermine. Its foundations are the fundamental and unchanging impulses\nof our nature. Its features are as clear and attractive to the child as\nto the philosopher. Philosophers will, of course, declare it\nsuperficial; but we may remind them that all their supposed deeper\nprobing of reality, from Pythagoras to Bergson, has ended in a\nconfusion of contradictory guesses. Churchmen will declare with horror\nthat it is \"materialistic\"; and we may remind _them_ that for\nfifteen centuries they have taught Europe to place its highest good in\nhappiness. If the happiness they promised is getting doubtful, we make\nsure of what we can. In truth, however, no nobler aim ever inspired\naction, and none is so fitted to appeal to modern man. It is, in fact,\nthe mainspring of nearly all the progressive activity of our time. The\nmore doubtful all else becomes, the more determined men and women are\nto be happy in this world. Thrones and creeds and institutions, even\nmoral codes, are brought to judgment to-day before that ideal. It is\nmore profitable to judge the living than the dead.\n\nThis ideal is the chief inspiration of the rebellious temper of our\nage. The revolt which burns in so much of the abler literature of our\ntime is an unselfish revolt, or non-selfish revolt: it is an outcome\nof that larger spirit which conceives the self to be a part of the\ngeneral social organism, and it is therefore neither egoistic nor\naltruistic. It finds a sanction in the new intelligence, and an\ninspiration in the finer sentiments, of our generation, but the glow\nwhich chiefly illumines it is the glow of the great vision of a\nhappier earth. It speaks of the claims of truth and justice, and\nassails untruth and injustice, for these are elemental principles of\nsocial life; but it appeals more confidently to the warmer sympathy\nwhich is linking the scattered children of the race, and it urges all\nto co-operate in the restriction of suffering and the creation of\nhappiness. The advance guard of the race, the men and women in whom\nmental alertness is associated with fine feeling, cry that they have\nreached Pisgah's slope; and in increasing numbers men and women are\npressing on to see if it be really the Promised Land. That is the\nspirit of the reform-movement of our times. Popes anathematise our\nage, and the clergy of all sects bemoan its \"materialism,\" yet it\nis exulting in a wider and higher idealism than any that ever yet\nstirred the heart of man. For we now know from what dark and brutal\norigins we came, and we feel that, if we advance only as we are\nadvancing, we may reach any height that any prophet ever yet saw in\nhis visions.\n\nIt is very difficult to avoid what seem to be rhetorical phrases in\ndescribing this age of ours: the age which some profess to find prosy\nand materialistic in comparison with the earlier age when a handful of\nplethoric landowners ruled England, and little children worked in\nfilthy rooms for twelve hours a day, and cut-throats, in most charming\ncostumes, slew each other in the fields of London. I have not the\nleast desire to use rhetoric; I do but express my feeling, and what I\ntake to be the feeling of \"advanced\" people generally, as it comes\nto me. But in this poetry there is the solidity of scientific prose.\nSome time ago I sailed slowly toward Teneriffe from the south. Eighty\nmiles away, on a fine morning, the summit of the Peak showed its\ndelicate contour in the clouds, hardly distinguishable from them. We\nthought it an illusion, a simulating cloud, because far below the\nsummit the blue sky seemed to stretch from horizon to horizon. The\nPeak floated in the air. But, as we drew nearer, the blue band below\nit grew thinner, and at last it disclosed the massive bulk of the\nsupporting mountain.\n\nSpeaking as a sober student of history and science, I say that this\ndream of a brighter and happier earth rests on no less solid a\nfoundation. We see primitive man, blindly, and with infinite slowness,\nmove towards civilisation: we see civilisation slowly, with many a\ntragic interruption, advance toward the modern age: and now we see the\npace quicken enormously, and we find a new consciousness of power and\na deliberate aim at higher things bear the race onward. The\nreformer's belief in the future is a scientific deduction from the\npast.\n\nThe failure of the mass of people to co-operate in the realisation of\nthis ideal is due, not to indolence or stupidity, but to the obsessing\ninfluence of the old traditions. They choke the fires of the mind:\nthey make us insensible to the real enormity of a great deal of our\nsocial arrangements. Hence it is that the reformer's appeal is cast\nso frequently in a negative or aggressive form. The most powerful\nthing in our world is, not truth, but untruth; and the most important\nthing in the world is to assail it. \"Great is truth, and it will\nprevail,\" said an ancient writer. But the civilisation which gave\nbirth to that sentiment died, and all its promising young truths\nperished with it, and Europe fell under the rule of lies for more than\na thousand years. Untruth is millennia older than truth. Its roots run\ndeep into the flesh of the heart, while the rootlets of truth are\nstruggling for a frail clasp in the intellect. Great is untruth, and\nit will prevail--unless it is attacked unceasingly. No untruth ever\ndied a natural death. Being the sacred truth of yesterday, it is\nusually entrenched in powerful corporations, embodied in the law and\nlife of nations, enshrined in the tenacious affections of the\nmillions. At one time you incurred sentence of death if you challenged\nit: now you incur slander, misrepresentation, and mockery. The race\nhas been made docile to it by a kind of negative Eugenic--perhaps we\nought to say Cacogenic--selection. Yet nearly everything which the\nmajority venerate as truth to-day began its career as heresy and will\nend it as lie.\n\nSo the first task of the well-wisher of mankind is to distinguish\ntruth from untruth in our traditions. The story of man is a long story\nof the tyranny of consecrated shams, with occasional intervals of\nrebellion and advance to a higher stage. Rebellion is the salt of the\nearth. There comes a time in the history of every civilisation when\nthe mind of a few rises high enough to survey critically that stream\nof traditions in which the majority lazily float. Then comes the\ninevitable revolt; hence the close kinship which we feel across the\nages with \"the Preacher,\" with Socrates, with Omar Khayy\u00e1m, with\nErasmus, with Moli\u00e8re. We are at the same stage of evolution, with\nthe difference that we moderns have an immense mass of knowledge of\nhistory and prehistory to aid us in testing the value of our\ntraditions. Already we have discarded scores of old dogmas: in\nreligion, politics, education, law, and every department of our common\nlife. It would be folly to attempt to fence off any province of our\nlife from this critical scrutiny. And since we obstinately retain many\ntraditions which a very high proportion of properly educated people\nregard as unsound and mischievous, since these traditions are the\nchief obstacle to the advance of the race, one of the most pressing\nneeds of our time is, surely, a stern campaign for the abolition of\nthis tyranny of shams.\n\n\n CHAPTER II.\n THE MILITARY SHAM\n\nIN the original conception of this work militarism was selected as\nthe first sham to be assailed because it is at once the most costly\nand the least excusable. The way to remove many of the blots on our\ncivilisation is by no means plain. A dozen conflicting theories\nconfront you, and each has a sufficiently large body of adherents to\nentitle it to consideration. But there are others in regard to which a\nlarge and practical measure of agreement has been reached. Here we do\nnot need so much the subtle dissection of arguments and proposals as\nthe kindling of that ardent and imperious sentiment which spurs a man\nor a race to action. The evil is recognised: the way to remedy it is\nsufficiently clear. What we need is, in the mass of the people, that\nfiery resentment of a hated tyranny which will shake the lie from its\nthrone.\n\nThe first, the gravest, the most flagrant and most vivid in our minds\nat the moment of these obvious shams is war, with the military system\nwhich it involves. Here there is no sacred legend of a divine origin\nto confuse the minds of the ignorant. There are legends of divine\napproval, it is true, but the clergy do not press them and they have\nlittle influence. War is a practice or institution which we clearly\ntrace to the wild impulses and imperfect social forms of early man:\neven to the sheer passion of the beast that was still strong in him.\nNo sophistry can obscure this bestial origin. We men and women of the\ntwentieth century cling to one feature, at least, of an age on which\nwe look back with high disdain: an age with which we would bitterly\nresent any comparison in point of intelligence and feeling. We may try\nto gild it with glittering phrases about a nation's honour, but we\nknow, all the while, that the honour of a nation no more demands that\nit shall dye its hands in the blood of a sister-nation than the honour\nof an individual requires so barbaric a consolation.\n\nWe maintain this sham in an age when mechanical progress has made such\nstrides that it has turned the industry of war into our chief and most\noppressive occupation. We cannot, with all our sacrifices, find the\nmeans to carry out most urgent reforms in our social life; we cannot\nput flesh on the bones and light in the eyes of poor children, or ease\nthe lives of worn workers and helpless widows; because we need these,\nand even greater resources, to sharpen the sabre for our neighbour's\nthroat and enlarge the calibre of the tube that will scatter a hail of\ndeath. We have for years stood in such attitude confronting each\nother, we civilised nations, that on any day of any year the bugle\nmight peal, and the soil and seas of Europe be reddened with blood,\nand the pain which knows no remedy shoot through millions of homes;\nand now the tragedy has opened, grimmer than the dourest prophet had\never pictured it. Why have we done this? Ultimately, because man, the\nprimeval savage, knowing nothing of our systems of justice, laid it\ndown that the knife or the club was the guardian of a man's honour\nor property: proximately, because we of this highly cultivated age\nenthrone still one of the most ghastly shams which barbarism succeeded\nin enforcing on civilisation.\n\nI have described it as a characteristic of our age that we are rising\nabove the stream of traditions which flows from civilisation to\ncivilisation, and are discovering that some of its sources are\ntainted. Now in the case of warfare this scrutiny of the origin and\ncourse of our traditions is comparatively easy. What we have\ndiscovered is so well known, and so little disputed, that it need\nhardly be related. It may be useful to state, at least, that very\nearly man was probably not a combative and bloodthirsty savage. He\nlives to-day in such lowly peoples as the Veddahs and the Yahgans, and\nthey are generally peaceful and averse from brawling. In this\nprimitive man, however, there slumbered all the impulsive passion of\nearlier ancestors, and it was inevitable that a cultural rise should\nawaken it. When men became organised in tribes, when they became\nhunters and tillers of the soil, when they increased and wandered far\nafield, quarrels arose over women and hunting grounds and other\nnecessaries, and the institution of warfare was established. Within\nthe tribe there was already some kind of court, as a rule, before\nwhich a man could bring his neighbour for wrong-doing. For the quarrel\nbetween tribe and tribe there was no judge: the verdict lay with the\nheavier weapon and the stouter arm. Hence, the higher the intelligence\nof the tribe, the more deadly and widespread became the carnage.\nFerocity became a useful social quality--a virtue, indeed, the supreme\nvirtue, or _virtus_ (manliness)--and the primitive genius was expended\nin making more cruel and lacerating the barbs of the arrow and the\nspear. The administration of justice advanced, and a time came when\nprivate vengeance, and even family feuds, were strictly forbidden and\nregarded as crimes. But, while ten men might not go to war against ten\nmen, ten thousand would march out, with the sonorous blessing of their\npriests, to the more barbaric butchery of war against ten thousand.\nThe mind had to grow larger, the heart more human, before the reign of\njustice would be acknowledged in the relations of masses of men to\neach other as well as in the relations of individuals.\n\nWith the dawn of civilisation a terrible paradox occurred. Warfare was\nnot abolished, but made more destructive. Again we find this a natural\nand intelligible development. Each early civilisation found itself\nsurrounded by barbaric tribes, with which no compact of justice could\nbe established or trusted. The great Stoic humanitarians of Rome, who\npreached the brotherhood of men and denounced violence, dared not, in\nthe interest of civilisation, plead disarmament. There were, of\ncourse, moral sophisms in support of this plain need. The profit of\naggression, the prestige of conquering, were adorned with phrases akin\nto our \"white man's burden.\" Yet it is true that until modern\ntimes warfare could not have been abolished without grave danger to\ncivilisation. The crime of warfare became a crime only in these later\ncenturies. Now that fully three-fourths of the race are gathered into\ncivilised states, a compact of justice, an international tribunal with\nan international executive, _is_ possible; and we are guilty, either\nof a base hypocrisy or a ghastly insensibility to our gravest\ninterests, in refusing to set up that compulsory international\ntribunal.\n\nNo writer will be expected to discuss patiently to-day the pitiful\nsophistry with which, until yesterday, a few defended the retention of\nthe military institution. Germany resounded with, and England and\nFrance and the United States echoed here and there, the pompous and\nhollow claims of its Treitschkes and Moltkes. War was a splendid moral\ndiscipline: an institution appointed by Providence for purging the\nrace of sloth and materialism, for restoring chivalry and brightening\nthe shield of honour and rebuking selfishness. War has grimly belied\nits apologists and we need notice them no longer. It has betrayed one\nof the greatest nations of modern times into horrors and outrages\nwhich are a supreme and eternal mockery of their moral claims for it.\n\nOthers more justly claimed that war develops the virility, the\nendurance, the power of men. The lesson of history, they said, is on\nthe side of war: the great empires of the world became great by their\nheroism and sacrifices on the field of battle. Here we must\ndistinguish carefully. It is obviously true that these empires became\nbig, powerful, and wealthy by war; and if any nation candidly\nconfesses that it relies on war to increase its territory, its power,\nand its wealth, its argument is unanswerable. But there is now no\nnation in the world that professes to maintain an army and a navy for\nthe purpose of aggression and expansion. Even Germany, which\nundoubtedly did construct its massive armament for that purpose, had\nnot the audacity to admit it. Defence is the justifying title and, in\nso far as it is sincere, it is a just title. If, as long as the\nmilitary system lasts, an army and a navy of a certain strength are\nrequired, in the judgment of appointed experts, for the defence of a\ncountry and its institutions, we pay our share willingly for the\nmaintenance of such an army and navy, and we respect our soldiers and\nsailors. I do not for one moment advocate the disarmament of one\nnation living amidst armed neighbours; and a partial disarmament, or\nan insufficient armament, is the surest provocation of war. My point\nis that, since the world has reached such a pitch of moral development\nthat each nation now professes to arm only against the possible\naggression of a neighbour, the time has come for them to agree upon\nthe infinitely less costly and more reliable way of settling their\npossible quarrels as individuals do. Only one nation, Germany, seems\nto be genuinely opposed to this, not so much from native malice of\ncharacter as from very serious domestic reasons for aggression: and a\nperfect opportunity now arises for effectively impressing on Germany\nthe fact that she has come too late into the family of Great Powers\nfor filibustering.\n\nAs to the development of physique and endurance and discipline, it is\ntoo obvious that this could be attained by athletic contests which are\nat present left to voluntary interest or to the unattractive\nman\u0153uvres of professional exploiters. For years I have followed\nprofessional football with keen pleasure, and I was interested when,\nat the outbreak of war, men cried that these footballers were the most\nsuperb material for our recruiting agents. It was perfectly true. Any\nState which is sincerely eager to develop the physique and endurance\nof its citizens can do it by the use of devices which will provide\nmost enjoyable spectacles and national or international festivals\ninstead of periodic orgies of blood and tears. The defenders of war\nmust be hard pressed for argument when they plead this necessity.\nThere is, moreover, one supreme difference between war and athletics\nas instruments of training. War destroys what it creates: athletics\nkeeps its men among our citizens and breeders.\n\nThe truth is that the whole historical argument for war, which has had\nan incalculable influence in the education of Germany, is a miserable\nfallacy. The real lesson of history is that militarism has been a\nmalignant cancer, transmitted from one empire to another, and, by\ndestroying them, it has hundreds of times suspended the advance of\ncivilisation. It is in a sense a fallacy to claim that any nation\nbecame great by war. The tribe which wins ascendancy over its\nneighbours does so because it is already more powerful, more numerous,\nor more fortunately situated. Then comes the period of expansion,\nwhen, as we admit, greater power and wealth and territory are\nundoubtedly won by the sword. This is the seductive phase of history,\nleading astray men like Ruskin as well as men like Mommsen and\nNiebuhr. Let us admit all its glories. Moral and humanitarian excesses\nare just as mischievous as immoral excesses. As a result of this\nsuccessful war and expansion, the older empires were enabled to foster\nart, to protect their growing culture, to civilise vast stretches of\nthe earth that might otherwise have lain uncivilised for ages.\n\nMost assuredly war has, in this sense, been a most valuable influence\nin spreading civilisation over the earth. What modern historians\nforget is that the conditions have totally changed. Your empire is no\nlonger surrounded by myriads of barbarians whom you must conquer\nbefore you can civilise. Germany has been forced to colour its\naggression by the stupid pretence that it had a higher _Kultur_ than\nits neighbours, and that, in endeavouring to impose it on them, it was\ncarrying out the \"law of history.\" It is a pity that science and\nhistory ever adopted the word \"law.\" What they mean, of course, is\nonly a summary of the way in which things uniformly occurred in\ncertain conditions. Now that the conditions are entirely changed, the\nlaws have no application. One might suggest that we still need armies\nto conquer and civilise the outstanding barbaric peoples. We do not.\nWe need an international armed force to check their aggressions, but\nthere are other and better methods of civilising them. In any case,\nthis plea has no relation to the vast armies and navies and the bloody\nwars we actually endure.\n\nBut it is the next and final phase of militarism which the historical\napologists for war have so grossly overlooked: the phase when the best\nstocks of the old race are extinguished on the battlefield or\nenervated by the luxurious idleness which was bought by the spoils of\nwar. Is it not proverbial how the great families which had led the\ninvincible legions of Rome dwindled in five centuries into a sickly\ncluster of parasites or wholly disappeared? Is it not notorious that\nit was, in the first century of the present era, the healthier\nprovincial stocks which saved Rome from destruction, or postponed its\ndestruction? And do we not find, as time goes on, men from more and\nmore distant provinces, in the end men from the barbaric fringes of\nthe Empire, coming to lead its legions and support its falling eagles?\nAll through Roman history war presents itself to the mind of the\ncandid historian as a vampire living on the best blood of the people.\nOnly a continuous supply of fresh blood and stout frames from the\nsubject peoples keeps up the illusion of an \"eternal Rome.\" It is\nonly the shell that lasts. The people of Rome itself and of the\nneighbouring plains, from which the old legionaries had come, were\nsoon exhausted. Italy in turn was exhausted and made desolate. Then\nGaul and Spain and Africa, and Thrace and Dacia and the more distant\nprovinces, were sucked bloodless and resourceless; and the great shell\nof an empire fell with a crash under the blows of Goth and Vandal. It\nis a clerical myth that Roman strength was sapped by vice. Its blood\nwas drunk by war.\n\nThese things Niebuhr and Mommsen forgot when they proposed to Germany\nthe splendid example of Rome; and history will have its revenge on its\ngreat interpreters by recording the close in tragedy of this new\nimperialism which they inspired. Other historians boldly quoted\nGreece--Alexander of Macedon--and the fallacy is even more piteous.\nAthens assuredly did not become great by war. Its most brilliant\nperiod opens after a crushing and devastating reverse, and its\nachievements were entirely due to its statesmen, its artists, and its\nthinkers. But from the moment when the shadow of the Macedonian empire\nfell on it, a blight came swiftly over its culture. Its glory departed\nfor ever when it became part of a great military power. Greece, as a\nwhole, was impoverished and ruined by war. Sparta itself, one of the\nmost strenuous military powers that ever lived, is a classical proof\nthat war invigorates only to destroy.\n\nTo whatever nation we turn, we learn the same lesson of history. Egypt\nsurvived the strain, owing to the constant infusion of foreign blood,\nfor eight thousand years, but sank at last so exhausted that it seems\nalmost beyond the hope of reanimation. Assyria and Babylonia were\nprepared for destruction by the same steady drain of their healthiest\nblood. The Hittites, the Lydians, the Ph\u0153nicians, the Medes, the\nPersians followed the same course. From the first founding of\ncivilisation in the valley of the Nile, ten thousand years ago, war\nhas brooded over its cities and cornfields, and has time after time\nblighted its achievements and its hopes. It is as though some god were\njealous of the advance of man, and maintained on the earth this\ncorroding pest to eat into the life of each successive empire, and, by\ndestroying it, to interrupt the progress of the race.\n\nIn the history of Europe since the fall of Rome we witness the same\nhuman tragedy. I do not overlook the other evil influences, such as\nfiscal disorder and industrial parasitism, which have contributed to\nthe fall of empires, but the share of war in these tragedies was\nincalculable. The fate of early England, battling against invaders and\nrent by internal quarrels for centuries, is typical. The greater\nEngland of modern times, or the _real_ greatness of modern England,\nwas built in periods of comparative peace by merchants and\nmanufacturers and scholars. Over the whole of Europe the vampire still\nbrooded, fastening on each young nation that advanced beyond its\nfellows. The medieval republics of Italy were wrecked by war. Holland\nand Portugal, once the most promising powers of Europe, were exhausted\nby it. Not vice, not enervation, not a dwindling birth-rate,--which\nare rather consequences than causes,--but the incessant exhaustion of\ntheir resources on the seas and the battlefield condemned them to\ndecay. Italy fell back into the state of impotence which gave Austria\nand the Papacy their ignoble opportunity. Once more the advance of\ncivilisation was checked by the jealous god of war.\n\nIt is, of course, true that warfare produced fine types of men; but\nfor every Bayard there were ten thousand brutal soldiers, whose march\nacross Europe left a broad track of rape and ruin. It is true that the\nnaval or military successes of Venice and Genoa and Florence enabled\nthem to raise marble palaces and to foster the art of painters and the\nresearch of scholars; but it is equally true that prosperity based on\nsuch a foundation was generally doomed. The example of medieval Rome\nshows that a military basis was not essential. The peoples from whom\nthe tribute had been wrung awaited their hour--the hour when the\nvampire had sucked the great frame weak and bloodless--and then, by\nthe same law of might, they smote the oppressor. The historian who\nreads the whole chronicle of man is saddened even in contemplating a\nnation's prosperity. Amidst the cries of joy and triumph and love he\nseems to hear the cynical laughter of the war-god.\n\nI need not follow the devastation of war through the later history of\nEurope. The Thirty Years War laid Germany desolate, and postponed its\ncultural development for more than a century. Spain, Portugal, and\nHolland, which had won empire by the sword, lost it to the sword. The\nOttoman Empire sank into weakness and shame. All this was due, in the\nfirst place, to what Count von Moltke calls \"the institution of\nGod\": the institution without which \"the world would fall into\ndecay and lose itself in materialism.\" Even while he spoke Germany\nwas prospering by peace as few nations had ever prospered before.\nCould there possibly be a more perverse reading of the lesson of\nhistory? Could there be a greater mockery conceived than to imagine\nGod smiling on this blood-reeking Europe, or to call this a spiritual\ntriumph over materialism? Is any man, with the present desolation of\nEurope before him, tempted to place the soldier above the artist, the\nscientist, or the engineer as an instrument of progress? Let us grant\nmilitarism all that it has really achieved. It remains, in the mind of\nthe historian, the greatest curse that mankind has endured since the\nprimitive humans were first gathered into tribes and disputed each\nother's \"spheres of influence.\"\n\nBlind to this ghastly tragedy of history, we have maintained and\ncherished militarism until it has brought on us in turn the greatest\ncatastrophe that a single year ever embraced. Probably our\ngrandchildren, probably many a child that gazes now with wide eyes on\nour troops and banners, will look back on our civilisation with\namazement. They may smile at a drill-sergeant like Count von Moltke\ntelling illiterate rustics of the glorious moral qualities which war\ndevelops in--the men who traversed Belgium! But we civilians will\nhonestly puzzle them. We had the history of the world unfolded before\nus, and we saw this institution plainly emerging from barbarism and\nleaving its bloody and defacing splashes on every page of the\nchronicle. We traced the evolution of justice, and we saw that, as it\nwas a mighty gain to men when tribunals were set up to adjudicate on\nthe quarrels of individuals or clans, it would be a far mightier gain\nto erect a tribunal for settling the quarrels of nations. Yet we took\nthis stupid burden from the shoulders of our fathers, and we made it\nincalculably heavier for ourselves and our children.\n\nI need not set out the weight of the burden in figures. When I first\nwrote this page I dilated on the seventy million sterling per year\nwhich we English were compelled to spend on defence: I imagined it\nexpended on social betterment and human help--on a magnificent scheme\nof education, for children and adults, and so on. Then I observed--two\nyears ago--with a shudder that at any moment a war might double our\nNational Debt and compel us to find a further \u00a340,000,000 a year to\npay for our militarism. And here, within less than twelve months, we\nhave incurred this monstrous burden, yet we linger still on the very\nfringe of the mighty battlefield we have to traverse. Think what the\nfuture may be if we retain militarism. In the past one hundred years,\nor a little more, war has cost Europe about \u00a34,000,000,000. In one\nyear a modern war has cost Europe more than that sum, and may cost it\ndouble. Add to this, if you can calculate it, the value of the\nmillions of the more robust workers who die on the field: the\nappalling loss to productive industry: the portentous devastation of\nproperty. I suppose that, soberly, the total cost of this war will be\nsomething between ten and twenty thousand million sterling. What will\nbe the cost of the next war, which may come within ten years? And what\nmight we have done in Europe with ten thousand million sterling?\n\nI am not, it will be observed, relying on disputed speculations like\nthose of Mr. Norman Angell. I do not accept his characteristic theory;\nbut it need not now be discussed, as our experience rather suggests\nthat a modern war will prove so exhausting, economically, that there\nwill be no question of substantial indemnity for the victor. But we\nmust in any case add to this cost of war, for victor and vanquished\nalike, that incalculable damage which is expressed in ruined homes,\nruined fortunes, and the pain of loss. This also is too vividly\npresent in our minds to need comment. These sacrifices have been borne\nheroically. Those of us who have lost nothing can most sincerely\nsalute both the men who exposed their lives in a just cause and the\nwomen who endured as women do. The soldier's trade is an honourable\ntrade while the need for it lasts, and at such a time it calls for\nrespect and gratitude. But how stupid and brutal in the last degree is\nthe system that imposes these sacrifices, when we reflect that the\nhonour or the rights of any nation could have been vindicated without\nthe darkening of a single home or the loss of a single citizen.\n\nThere, of course, we have the centre of gravity of the whole\ndiscussion. _If_ we can abolish and dispense with the military system,\nour retention of it in the twentieth century is the most appalling\nsham and anachronism of which we are guilty. I do not enlarge on the\ncost of war. No one to-day can be insensible of it or suggest that any\nbut the most imperious needs would justify us in retaining it. I\nassume also that, after the lamentable behaviour of Germany, none will\nquestion that there will be wars as long as militarism lasts, and that\nthe cost and carnage will increase prodigiously.\n\nThe supreme point for us to realise is the comparative ease with which\nthis greatest of reforms can be accomplished. We have no rival schools\nof economists or moralists or philosophers darkening counsel here. We\ndo not await a genius to discover the path for us. A plain and\nseriously indisputable ideal is put before us: arbitration. A court\nfor exercising it has already been established: the Hague Tribunal.\nLet the majority of people in the more powerful nations of the earth\nagree to submit every international difference to that or some other\ntribunal, and we have made an end of militarism and war.\n\nIf this seem a hasty or superficial view of a grave problem, reflect\non the difficulties which a cautious or conservative thinker might\nallege. He would, I fancy, on sincere consideration, admit that the\nchief and most serious difficulty is not a reluctance based on\nspecific reasons, but a general apathy due to want of reflection. I am\nnot for a moment underrating the magnitude of the effort that will be\nrequired in overcoming this apathy, in creating the general will. In\nthis respect, indeed, the pacifist reform is peculiarly hampered.\nPessimistic people ask how we came to boast of moral progress in\nmodern times when this military evil has become greater than ever.\nThey do not reflect on the special conditions of the problem. In\nattacking almost every other evil--industrial injustice, say, or cruel\nsport, or a stupid penal code--we have to deal only with our own\nnation. We can carry the reform within our own frontiers, whatever\nother nations do. In the case of militarism we cannot. All the Great\nPowers, at least, must advance simultaneously. We have not to educate\na nation, but a planet. Pacifists have at times given the\nimpression--generally a wrong impression--that they forgot this; that\nthey advocated disarmament or relaxation of armament in our own\nnation, whether other nations disarmed or no. In this way, and because\nmany pacifists have weakly opposed or carped at England's action in\nthis very grave crisis, they have done harm by making humanitarianism\nseem unpractical, blindly sentimental, and dangerous. I need not\nrepeat that I have not the least sympathy with that sort of pacifism.\nThe reform must be international and thoroughly practical.\n\nBut this large task of planting a definite conviction in the minds of\nthe majority in many nations does not conflict with what I said about\nthe essential clearness and simplicity of the reform. If you set out\nto attack poverty or to reform marriage, you have first to settle very\nserious controversies about the way to do it. There is no such\ncontroversy here. There are, it is true, a few who still have in their\nveins some of the blood of the medieval swashbuckler. They say that,\nwhile a quarrel about territory might fitly be referred to a judge, an\noutrage on our national honour must be expiated by blood. The idea is\npurely barbaric. As if this river of human blood were not an\nimmeasurably greater outrage than the heated words of a nervous\ndiplomatist, or the jibes of a silly journalist, or the acts of an\nexcited crowd, or the guilt of a couple of assassins! As if an\ninternational court could not devise some means of appeasing injured\nhonour as well as of restoring injured rights! It is dreadful\nmaterialism, they say, to put honour in the scale with money. So men\nsaid in the clubs of London a century ago in defence of the duel, and\nwe recognise in their pleas the lingering, more or less disguised, of\na barbaric sentiment. Most of us recognise that same feature in this\nlast apology for the duel of nations. If we can trust our individual\nhonour to a mediocre magistrate or judge, or a still worse jury, we\ncan certainly entrust our national honour to a group of the ablest and\nmost impartial lawyers of the world. It is sheer distrust of justice\nto refuse it.\n\nHere again history is wholly on the side of reform. Which of the great\nwars of the nineteenth century involved a point of honour that could\nnot, with entire decency, have been submitted to arbitration? Was\nthere such a point of honour in the Napoleonic wars? The\nPrusso-Danish? The Prusso-Austrian? The Italian? The American Civil\nWar? The Franco-German? The Russo-Turkish? The South African? What\npoint was involved in any of them that could not have been settled\nwith far greater honour to the combatants and greater regard for\njustice by an impartial tribunal? In most cases they were really wars\nof aggression and expansion, like the war in which we are engaged. We\nmay at least ask the men who hold that medieval idea of war to\nhave--since they boast much of their courage--the elementary courage\nto say so.\n\nThere is no conceivable quarrel that cannot with perfect honour be\nsubmitted to arbitration. And the ostensible ground of this colossal\nstruggle which is now exhausting Europe--the satisfaction due to\nAustria for the assassination of the Archduke--was pre-eminently a\nmatter for a tribunal. The frivolity and insincerity with which these\ngrave issues are sometimes met are, to put it on the lowest level,\ncostly. Speaking in a London club some time ago, I urged this\nsubstitution of arbitration for war. My opponent frivolously observed\nthat he was not sure that a court of great lawyers would be cheaper\nthan war, and there were some who quite seriously applauded. Yet\nEurope had then actually expended about \u00a32,000,000,000 in the\npreliminary stages of its great war!\n\nWherever there is a considerable and deliberate reluctance to\nsubstitute arbitration for war, wherever these unsatisfactory pleas\nfor war are put forward, we find a hypocritical concealment of real\nmotives. If we would be practical we must candidly confront these\nmotives, and we shall find that the most persistent and most dangerous\nof them is still the desire to gain territory. The spectacle of the\ndecay of the Ottoman Empire and the apparent helplessness of the\nBalkan peoples had more to do with the militarism of European Powers\nthan they were willing to admit. That source of temptation is now\nrenewed, and most of the Powers have, or soon will have, all the\nterritory they can reasonably desire. The further distribution of\nAfrican territory could clearly be best controlled by an international\ncourt. There remains one Power that will still feel the lust of\nterritory. Germany conspicuously thwarted in Europe the advance of the\npacifist reform because, as the whole world now sees, it had an\naggressive territorial ambition. We may assume that Austria will now\nbe cured of its lawless and costly designs, and that Germany will\nremain the one unsated and discontented nation. But Europe will surely\nhave the elementary wisdom of refusing to maintain its terrible burden\non that account. It will pay us better to meet the real economic need\nof Germany by a generous colonial deal, and then to use the power of\nan international polity to destroy and prevent the revival of\nmilitarism in that country.\n\nWe should thus remove the last serious obstacle to the reform, and the\nwork might advance rapidly. The tribunal, as I said, exists, and has\nhad more experience than is generally realised. The Hague Conference\nof 1907 established a Prize Court, with permanent salaried judges, and\nan Arbitration Court. A large number of very grave quarrels have since\nbeen adjusted by this tribunal, and, as Professor Sch\u00fccking observes,\n\"more than a hundred contracts between States have been concluded in\nwhich, on each occasion, two States made the Arbitration Court\nobligatory.\" But, largely owing to the opposition of Germany and the\ngeneral apathy, the Court remained optional, and the Powers maintained\ntheir armies for the settlement of quarrels in the old barbaric\nmanner. The next and last step is for all the Powers to recognise the\nCourt as compulsory, and to furnish it with an executive (a small\ninternational army and navy) for the enforcement of its decisions. Our\nvast armies and navies then become superfluous and would be disbanded\nsimultaneously, leaving only a small force in each country for the\nsuppression of native aggression (with the consent of the Hague Court)\nand for use by the Court itself to enforce its verdicts or suppress\nillegal attempts to arm.\n\nThere is nothing Utopian or academic about this reform. A body of\nhigh-minded lawyers and statesmen have for years discussed the details\nof the scheme, and are ready to launch it whenever the various\nGovernments are compelled by public opinion to adopt it. The immediate\ntask is to create this pressure of public opinion. We may hope that,\nafter our ghastly lesson in the price of the military method, we shall\nno longer be rebuffed with vapid phrases like: \"Do not force the\npace.\" A business-man who talked nonsense of that kind would soon\nfind his level. We need to conduct our national and international life\non business-principles, to get rid as speedily as possible of a waste\nand disorder which are an outrage on the intelligence of the race. I\nlook more confidently to business-men than to speech-making\npoliticians and sentimental moralists for the triumph of the reform.\nCertain industries will, of course, be gravely dislocated, even\nannihilated, by the change; and vast bodies of additional workers\nwill, in most countries, be thrown upon a crowded labour-market. From\nthe abstract economical point of view it is only a question of\ntransfer. Fifty millions which were spent on military industries will\nnow be used in enlarging other industries or creating new. In reality\nthere will be grave confusion; but that is due to the utterly\ndisorganised nature of our industrial world, which I discuss later. In\nany case to allege this industrial difficulty as a serious reason\nagainst disarmament is a very singular piece of folly. The cost and\ntrouble of adjusting this temporary dislocation would be infinitely\nless than the cost and trouble of a war.\n\nWe need, therefore, to persuade the public, which has borne its\nmilitary yoke and endured the occasional lash of war with the\nplacidity of a draught-ox--that is, candidly, how we shall appear in\nthe social history of the future--that it may escape the yoke and the\nlash when it wills. Our Churches might make some atonement for a long\nand lamentable neglect of their duty by organising a really spirited\ncollective campaign in this greatest of moral interests. The central\neducative body should, however, be quite unsectarian. I take it that\nan amalgamation of the various Peace Societies, strengthened by the\nadhesion of our commercial and industrial leaders, would form this\ncentral educative body. The present war would furnish it with a superb\ntext and an unanswerable argument. It ought, in the circumstances, to\ncapture each country in Europe more speedily than Cobden's famous\nleague captured England. The press would begin to assist at a certain\nstage of progress. Even the politicians would presently lend their\noratory; especially as their prestige, at least in this country, would\nhardly survive a second strain such as this war has put on it. Every\nagency ought to be enlisted in impressing upon the public that,\nwhatever other reforms may imply, here we ask no sacrifice; we\nindicate a way in which the community may, when it wills, rid itself\nof a stupendous burden and set free enormous resources for social\nimprovement.\n\nReformers are widely, and with some reason, accused of being dreamy\nand unpractical. Here, at least, it will be seen that it is rather the\npublic and the opponents of reform who are dreamy, romantic, and\nunpractical: that the reform itself is a business proposition of the\nmost attractive and promising character. But let us be even more\npractical. To forecast the future is an interesting intellectual\nrecreation; but to close one's mind entirely against the\npossibilities and dangers of the future is positive folly. Let us\nglance at the future.\n\nI have not the faintest hope that the Allied Powers will, as they\nought to do, disarm Germany and Austria and then disarm themselves,\nwhen the war is over. Then Germany will concentrate all its marvellous\npower of organisation, dissimulation, and intrigue in a dream of\n_revanche_. The appalling incompetence displayed by what we may call,\nin the broadest sense, our Intelligence Department and our War Office\nwill return, when the temporary accession of business-ability has been\nwithdrawn from it. There will be no serious inquiry into our\nscandalous indolence in the early period of the war, our complete\nfailure to forecast the conditions of war, and our heavy somnolence\nduring Germany's feverish preparations, although the documents\npublished by the French Government show that, by 1913 at least,\nsharp-sighted foreign representatives saw clearly that war was, to put\nit moderately, highly probable. In point of fact, our authorities knew\nthat war was gravely imminent. I happen to know, from a little breach\nof confidence, that our War Office secretly warned certain reservists\nin June 1914 (even before the Serajevo murder) to be ready. The men\nwere ready, and have borne _their_ share superbly; but our authorities\nhad to confess that, even after nine months' experience of the war,\nthey were immeasurably behind Germany in the production of the two\nvital necessaries of a modern war--machine-guns and high-explosive\nshells.\n\nOur experts will return to this comfortable somnolence. There will be\nno serious inquiry. Politicians and their advisers will escape in a\ncloud of thrilling emotions and enthusiastic rhetoric. Persistent\nquestioners, who are rudely impatient of party-discipline, will be\nsnubbed and evaded. Any other questioners, not of the political world,\nwill be ignored. We shall return to British dignity and placidity.\nGermany will work and intrigue as it never worked and intrigued\nbefore. There will be grave domestic trouble in Russia and, as in the\ncase of Turkey, German representatives will think while British\nrepresentatives play. The preparations may occupy ten years or twenty\nyears, but they will proceed. The aim will be a war with Russia\nneutral or friendly to Germany. If it occurs ... One has only to\nimagine where we should be to-day if Germany had not made the error of\nabandoning the Bismarckian tradition.\n\nBehind this is a further possibility. China is just as capable as\nJapan of learning the use of thirteen-inch guns and maxims. Sir Hiram\nMaxim, in fact, who knows both China and the gun, quite agrees with me\non that. And China has, behind that stoical and almost childlike\nexpression it presents to Europe, an acute memory that for thirty\nyears we have treated it with flagrant injustice. It may take decades\nto undo the evil of ages of Manchu misgovernment and organise the\nresources of the country, but the day will come when an alert and\npowerful nation of 500,000,000 Orientals will press against its\nfrontiers. We may remember that the Mongol banners have before now\nfluttered over Moscow and reached the Mediterranean. And the Mongols\nare not the only awakening people. We may yet see an anti-European\ncombination from the Asiatic shore of the Pacific to the African shore\nof the Atlantic. These are some of the possibilities we hand on to our\nchildren if we do not in time abandon the military system.\n\nTo that pass has it brought us. We writhe and groan under the terrible\nburden it lays on us, and we shrink from contemplating the future; yet\nwe might cast off the burden and rid the future of peril when we will.\nWe disavow the buccaneering spirit, and protest that we arm only in\ndefence against each other; and one wonders whether to smile or weep\nat the obtuseness which prevents us from adopting a simple and humane\nmeans of defence instead of this exhausting barbarism. We\n\"humanise\" war, yet cling needlessly to the whole inhuman\nbusiness. We are teaching the backward nations to arm,--we would\ngladly supply them with tutors and arms at any time,--and may be thus\npreparing a more colossal conflict than ever. Surely the man or woman\nof the twenty-first century will find us an enigma!\n\nLet me close with a repetition of my protest against the\nmisconstruction to which such a book as this is always exposed. I\nadvocate no Utopian scheme, but one which some of the ablest lawyers,\nstatesmen, and business-men in Europe have discussed for years and\nwarmly endorsed. I have no wish to conceal technical difficulties\nunder sentimental phrases, but these men, to whom I refer, are\nprepared to meet the difficulties. I regard the work of the soldier as\nhonourable and worthy, as long as we impose the military system on\neach other; and at this particular juncture regret only that I am long\npast the age of bearing arms. I plead, as long as the system lasts,\nfor unquestionable efficiency in national defence, whatever it cost.\nBut I say that, in this military system, we are enthroning the\nhollowest and most ghastly sham that ever deluded humanity: that, when\nwe have the courage or wisdom to strip it of its tinselled robes, we\nwill shudder at sight of the gaunt frame of death which has ruled\ncivilisation for so many thousand years: that nothing is wanting but\nthe general will to dethrone this mockery of a god: and that, when we\nhave abolished militarism and war, we shall advance along the way of\nsocial improvement with far lighter steps and vastly increased\nresources.\n\n\n CHAPTER III.\n THE FOLLIES OF SHAM PATRIOTISM\n\nWHEN warfare is abolished, and men no longer peep at their foreign\nneighbours over hedges of bayonets, there will be a number of less\nimportant international absurdities to remove. Some three hundred\nyears ago, we discovered that the earth was a globe. To-day we are\nappreciating that this globe is the property of the human race, and\nthat the friendly co-operation of all branches of the race is\nextremely desirable. National efforts and sacrifices are undone by\ninternational waste and disorder. We begin to perceive this, and the\nmost sober of us must look forward to a time when the scattered and\nantagonistic elements of the race will agree upon some graceful design\nof a City of Man, and unite in constructing it.\n\nThat familiar phrase, the Brotherhood of Men, sounds rather hollow in\nthe ears of many. I am avoiding pretty phrases and disputable creeds\nand subtle philosophies--I am trying to keep in direct contact with\nthe realities of life--and therefore I do not use it. But the sincere\nsentiment behind it, the feeling that we men and women do form one\nlarge family in possession of an immense and infinitely fertile\nestate, and that we will develop our property more advantageously for\neach of us if we act as though we were brothers, can hardly be\nchallenged. The question of the exact expression of our relationship\nto each other may be left to poets and scientists.\n\nThose lighter shams of patriotism, which I shall describe in this\nchapter as hampering the march of the race, will be recognised even by\nmen who, with Carlyle or Nietzsche, refuse the title of brother to\nsome of their fellows. We ourselves smile at them sometimes, and at\nthe cheerfulness with which we endure the grave inconvenience they put\non us; and they will certainly provoke the laughter of the scholars\nwho will some day learnedly discuss the question whether we men and\nwomen of the twentieth century were or were not civilised. They have,\nit is true, a much more serious aspect; they are important auxiliaries\nof the war-god. On the whole, however, they are shams that we ought to\nkill with ridicule and bury with genial disdain. They are practices or\ninstitutions which we have plainly inherited from the barbaric past,\nwhen men were slaves of tradition, kingly or priestly, and dare hardly\nuse their own intelligence on their own habits. In this age of ours,\nwhen we are at last becoming the masters, instead of the slaves, of\nour traditions, they are regarded by large bodies of men and women in\nevery civilised country as stupid, anachronistic, and mischievous.\n\nIn fact, there is here again no serious difference of opinion. One has\nnot to force one's way through some controversial thicket before one\ncan discover the correct path of reform. The way lies perfectly clear\nbefore us, and we can enter it at any time when we have the collective\nwill to do so. One might again describe the proposal, not as a\n\"reform\"--since many people instinctively shrink from the word\nreform--but as a business proposition of the simplest and most\nprofitable character. I speak of those false and antiquated freaks of\npatriotism which keep different groups of human beings speaking\ndifferent languages, using different weights and measures, wrestling\nwith each other's mysterious coinage, collecting each other's\nstamps, and stumbling against the many other irritating diversities\nwhich make one part of the earth \"foreign\" to another. It may seem\nto imply some lack of sense of proportion to pass from so grave a\nsubject as war to these matters, but a very little reflection will\nshow how closely they are connected.\n\nThe first and most ludicrous of them is the stubbornness with which\neach fragment of the race prides itself on having a language of its\nown. This confusion of tongues has irritated and inconvenienced and\nhelped to exasperate against each other the various sections of the\nhuman community for thousands of years, although we could suppress it\nat will in half a generation. Millions of us have an acute and\nconstant experience of the absurdity of the system. In our schools,\nwhere mind and body require the fullest possible attention during the\nfew years of training, we devote a large proportion of the time to\nteaching children how the same idea may be expressed by half a dozen\ndifferent sounds. The higher the class of school, the more valuable\nand skilled the teacher, the more time must be wasted in learning how\nancient Greeks and Romans, or how Germans and French and Italians,\nhave invented different sounds from ours for expressing the same\nideas. The slenderness of the protest one hears against this polyglot\nsystem from educators themselves is amazing. They have, it is true,\nbegun to rebel in large numbers against the teaching of dead\nlanguages, but comparatively few of them support the increasing demand\nfor that adoption of a common tongue which would do so much for the\nadvance of education.\n\nThose whose parents did not happen to be wealthy enough in their youth\nto send them to schools which have the distinction of teaching\n\"languages\" are hampered in a hundred ways. If they travel, they\nmust pay sycophantic waiters and couriers to give them a dim\nunderstanding of the human world through which they pass. Even in\ntheir own country they cannot order a dinner at any well-ordered\nrestaurant without first studying a lengthy vocabulary of superfluous\nsounds, or without practising a dozen little hypocrisies to conceal\ntheir ignorance. In large colonial hotels, where hardly a single\nperson who does not speak English is ever found, one receives a\n\"menu\" with the usual intimidating array of French phrases. \"You\nought to supply dictionaries with this sort of thing!\" said an angry\nyoung squatter, taking a seat beside me in the Grand Hotel at\nMelbourne, to the waiter. If you are travelling for business, or even\ntransacting business at home, you must have your foreign\ncorrespondents and agents; and with their aid you follow dimly the\nvery interesting advances and experiments that are being made in your\ndepartment abroad. Our Governments must pay more heavily for\ndiplomatic and consular service. Our books and magazines make a parade\nof foreign phrases which have not yet become as familiar as English.\nOur shopkeepers add twenty-five per cent. to the cost of our linen by\ncalling it \"lingerie.\" ...\n\nWe are tormented in a hundred ways, yet we contemplate this absurd\nmuddle and waste with as resigned an air as if we still believed that\nthe Almighty had, in a fit of temper, created the confusion of tongues\nat ancient Babel. So subtle and strong is the hold of custom on us\nthat we rarely even ask ourselves whether this is a wise or an\nunalterable arrangement. We hear with indifference, if not with\namusement, of societies which propose to adopt one international\ntongue in the place of this ridiculous confusion; we languidly picture\nto ourselves little groups of long-haired faddists meeting in bleak\nhalls to attract our duller neighbours to the cultivation of one more\ninnocent enthusiasm. We have not time for these things. When a\nsensible man has given adequate time to business and pleasure, he has,\nhe says, no hours to spare for these idealistic luxuries. Yet a\nmoment's serious reflection would show us that the sole aim of these\n\"faddists\" is to make life _less_ crowded and laborious, to\nlighten our business and add to our pleasure, to introduce\ncommon-sense into a large part of our conduct. To such strange\ncontradictions and absurdities does this resolve to resist innovation\nbring us.\n\nMost people are, perhaps,--if they ever give a thought to the\nmatter,--under the impression that it is a mountainous and\nimpracticable task to introduce such a reform into the life of the\nworld. It is, on the contrary, one of the simplest and most\npracticable reforms to which men could set their hands. It is even\nless controversial a measure than the abolition of war. There are few\nprejudices of our time which have not attracted the ingenuity of some\nfaddist or other; but this is one of the few. More emphatically here\nthan in the case of war, all that we need is the will of the majority\nto change our anachronistic practice. When one regards the entirely\nuncontroversial nature of the reform and the immense economy it will\nentail, it is hardly unreasonable to hope that this will of the\nmajority may soon be secured.\n\nI assume that, when we agree to direct our \"Governments\" to carry\nout this elementary improvement of international life, they will\nsummon an international commission of philologists, educators, and\ncommercial men, whose business it will be to create a new language.\nThis step will not be taken until the voluntary movement for reform\nhas reached such proportions as to arouse the interest of politicians;\nbut in the end we rely on governmental action, as it is necessary to\nreform schools and Parliaments. This international commission will, no\ndoubt, examine impartially such languages as Esperanto. Possibly these\nexisting international tongues will be found more complex than an\nideal language ought to be, and less attentive to the finer values of\nspeech. For the simple purpose of expression it is possible to create\na tongue far less complex than any in use in the civilised world\nto-day: a tongue that could be learned in a few months even by the\nuntrained intelligence. It would proceed on the entirely opposite\nprinciple to that of modern word-makers: the principle, for instance,\nthat changes \"fireworks\" into \"pyrotechnics\" (a piece of bad\nGreek for good English), or \"gardening\" into \"horticulture.\"\nThe use of this debased Latin and Greek in science has a certain\nadvantage under our present polyglot system, as it is an approach\ntoward international agreement, but it is making more onerous than\never the burden of our languages. We want a simple means of expression\nand intercourse, with a power of expanding to meet the advance of\nthought and discovery without needing to run to such lengths as\n\"diaminotrihydroxydodecanoic acid.\" No existing national speech\nwould meet the purpose, least of all English; but it would be\nadvisable to have some regard to \u00e6sthetic interests in framing a new\nlanguage, and the old tongues would supply a good deal of material in\nthis regard. The success of the poet depends on qualities of words as\nwell as qualities of imagination, and we have no wish, like Plato, to\nexclude poets from the ideal commonwealth. We should retain large\nnumbers of these short expressive words.\n\nGreat numbers of people hesitate in face of this proposal because they\nfeel that it is a very large innovation, however simple and\nindisputable it is in principle. They contemplate such things as a\nnervous child gazes on the sea from the steps of a bathing machine.\nIntellectually, a few such plunges would be of incalculable service to\nour generation. One can understand people hesitating before some\ndisputed economic or political scheme, but to shrink from adopting\nplain and large reforms such as this is not a sign of health. We need\nto purge our sluggish imaginations of their prejudices, to brace our\nintellectual power, to take pride in our creativeness.\n\nWhen the new international tongue is ready, a few years will suffice\nto make it prevail over the older languages in the leading countries\nwhich helped to set up the commission. It will become the one speech\nof the school, the press, commerce, law, government, and, possibly,\nthe church. The travelling public will, as every Esperantist knows, at\nonce discover the advantage. The commercial world will find it a\nsplendid economy and a priceless boon to international trade. A man\nwill be able to travel from London to Tokyo with as little difficulty\nas from Woolwich to Ealing; and it will be found that when the foreign\ntongue, which so instinctively suggests to us the uniform of an enemy,\nhas disappeared, one of the worst obstacles to mutual good-feeling\nwill be removed. When the Englishman can talk to the Berliner with\nperfect ease,--I assume that all beginnings of dialect would be\nsuppressed as mercilessly as weeds in a well-kept garden,--just as a\ncitizen of London now talks with a citizen of New York or Sydney, a\nvery dangerous chasm will be bridged. It is quite certain that the\ncalamitous attitude of modern Germany could not have proceeded to such\na dangerous pitch if the Imperialist and other literature which is\nresponsible for it had been intelligible to the whole of Europe. A few\nstudents of particular aspects of German life were more or less\nacquainted with it, and we refused to believe then. Now we discover,\nto our amazement, that a neighbouring nation has for decades been\nopenly educated up to a pitch of unscrupulous aggression, and the\nworld has been threatened with an incalculable catastrophe. I am not\noverlooking the real reasons for this development, but I say\nconfidently that it would have been impossible if a national\nliterature were not generally confined within the nation which\nproduces it.\n\nIn the school the advantage would be very considerable. Our\noverstrained and bespectacled children would be spared several hours a\nday of their school-work or home-work. The whole ancient and\nmodern-language section of the curriculum would be suppressed, and\nthis suppression, with other reforms which I will describe later,\nwould enlarge the teacher's opportunity of giving real education and\nspare the pupil a great deal of devastating brain-fag. For the\neducation of older people the gain would be almost as great. A\nBirmingham artisan could read the latest novel of d'Annunzio or\nlatest play of Hauptmann without the assistance of expert or inexpert\ntranslators. All the older literature that is worth preserving would\nbe translated by specially qualified interpreters into the new tongue,\nand the originals would then become the toys of leisured pedants. If,\nas I suggested, a proper attention to word-values were secured in the\nmaking of the new tongue, there is no reason why it should not express\npoetical sentiments as gracefully and pleasantly as any existing\ntongue.\n\nIs there any Utopian element in this scheme? Most people will probably\nrecognise that the only bit of utopianism in it is the expectation\nthat the majority of any nation can be induced to adopt it. That might\nseem to justify one in using impatient language about the wisdom of\nthe majority of us, but it is no reflection on the scheme itself. The\nreformer, however, is ill-advised in reflecting on the intelligence of\nhis fellows. Carlyle's \"twenty-seven millions, mostly fools,\"\ndiscovered in the end that all their follies, which he so vigorously\ndenounced in his _Latter-Day Pamphlets_, were more permanent and\naccurate than his \"eternal verities.\" It is usually want of\nleisure or immediate profit which alienates the public from schemes of\nreform. Possibly a scheme which so plainly promises more leisure to us\nand a very considerable profit may hope to win attention. The reform\nof spelling I, of course, take as an integral part of the scheme.\n\nBut this reform of international intercourse must take a more\ncomprehensive shape than the mere suppression of this confusing\nplurality of tongues. It is just as foolish of us to maintain a\nplurality of weights and measures, of coinage and postage-stamps, of\nsocial and civic and juridical forms. Even if we confine our attention\nto the leading civilised nations, we find in these respects a\nconfusion which outrages the elementary instincts of commercial life\nand lays a monstrous burden of superfluous trouble on us all.\nTravellers and business-men endure it year after year with the most\namazing patience. Men who would be fired to instant action if they\nfound a trace of such disorder in their domestic or commercial\nconcerns resign themselves to this colossal muddle of international\nintercourse as calmly as if it were a providential and entirely sacred\narrangement. I remember once passing rather rapidly from Lucerne to\nLondon, by way of Wiesbaden, Cologne, and Brussels: on another\noccasion by way of Cologne and Amsterdam. The hours one has to spend\nin calculating coinage (or lose the exchange-value), the worry\nexpended in struggling for stamps or dinners in the less familiar\ntongues, the confusion of train-rules and street-usages and civic\nregulations, reflect a system of chaotic disorder; to say nothing of\nthe \"sizes\" of boots or collars you need, the weight of tobacco or\nfruit, and so on.\n\nAll this is a portentous example of slavery to tradition, whether the\ntradition be reasonable or no. We have not the slightest regard for\nthe historical development of this muddle and the peculiar folly of\nretaining it in our generation. Our earlier ancestors measured their\nwoollens or their corn or their mead by the simple standards that are\napt to occur to primitive peoples. Even, however, where the same\nstandard occurred to, or commended itself to, different and remote\ncommunities, its vagueness was fatal. \"A thousand paces\" (a\n_mille_, as the Romans said) seemed a fair reckoning for long\ndistances, but the stretch varied, and we have Irish miles and German\nmiles and English miles and nautical miles. Our ounces and yards and\npints are as intelligent as most of the other things which the ancient\nBriton invented, but, being British, they seem sacred to us. A hundred\nyears ago a far superior standard, the decimal system, was put before\nus, but our fathers felt that it smacked of the French Revolution and\nNapoleon and atheism. We smile at their prejudice, yet we have no\ngreater disposition to alter our unintelligent ways. The German would\nbe horrified at having to reckon his distances in kilometres. The\nBritish lion, the French or German or Russian or American\neagle,--there is a marvellous love of that symbol of aspiration and\nprogress,--or the rising sun of Japan, must have its own system of\nweights and measures and coins. Passing through a strip of Canada some\nmonths ago I had, from lack of the local stamps, to entrust my post to\na kindly waitress; and was, of course, robbed. Of late years,\nAustralia has patriotically resolved to have its own coins, and has\nfought parliamentary battles over its stamps.\n\nThe often-imagined visitor from another planet would not be so much\nsurprised at this extraordinary and costly muddle of patriotic shams\nas at our faculty for progress in commerce and industry amidst it all.\nWe seem to be quite blind to the larger applications of our modern\ndoctrine of efficiency. Regarded as an economic system, which it\nreally is, the international arrangement of our civilised world is\nfull of crudities which are more worthy of a Papuan pedlar. The\ncontrast between the methods of a large Chicago store or a British or\nGerman engineering-business and the methods we retain in far larger\nand more important concerns will one day be a subject of amazement.\nThe evil of which I am speaking eats into the very heart of an\nindustrial and commercial system which prides itself on its order,\neconomy, and efficiency. Yet this comprehensive muddle is contemplated\nalmost without protest by business-men. If it were merely the leisure\nhours of travellers which were dissipated in this abstruse study of\nforeign tongues and coins and customs, we might merely deplore\nproverbial vagaries of taste. But the abuse is immeasurably greater\nthan this; the advantage we should gain by this scheme of unification\ncan scarcely be calculated. One would think that the reform was really\ndifficult to achieve, or lay under the frown of some imposing school\nof theologians or moralists or economists!\n\nI omit from the list of perversities whatever is the subject of\nserious economic controversy. Such things as national tariffs, for\ninstance. However arguable the question may be in England, even the\nfree-trader usually appreciates in such a country as Australia the\nplea for a protective tariff. There is, at all events, a very serious\ncontroversy on the general issue, and it would not be expedient to\ninclude among plain reforms any scheme of universal free-trade or\nuniversal protection. It is enough to point out that certain obvious,\nstupid, and mischievous survivals of old conditions gravely hamper our\ninternational intercourse. The prestige of our civilisation, as well\nas a common-sense view of our interest, demand that we shall suppress\nthem. More disputable reforms may be considered afterwards. Our usual\nmethod is, one fears, to discuss the more disputable reforms first.\n\nIt is difficult to conceive any plea being put forward on behalf of\nthese irrational old customs, but a sufficiently ingenious and\nsuperficial apologist might claim that patriotism bids us maintain\nthem. There is no doubt that the work of reform will have to proceed\nover the bodies of a number of the pettier patriots. No one can\nsuppose that the task of unification will be accomplished without\nfriction. German professors and Bulgarian politicians will protest\nagainst this pernicious cosmopolitan spirit, this horrible wish to\ndenationalise us, this tampering with the sources of national energy.\nArdent Irishmen and Welshmen will form very talkative associations for\nthe defence of \"the grand old tongue.\" Rival languages will be put\nforward, and Esperanto will strain its hitherto respectable resources\nin denouncing Volap\u00fck or the new official speech. French and English\nand German savants will heatedly press the claims of ideal words in\ntheir respective languages to be taken over, and pamphleteers will\ndiscuss whether Herr Professor Doktor Schmidt did or did not\ncontribute more suggestions than Professor Smith. A higher criticism\nof the new language will spread its pale growth like a parasitic\nfungus.\n\nWhat is patriotism? In the sense in which the word is still widely, if\nnot generally, understood, it stands for a sentiment that belongs\nessentially to a pre-rational age and cannot survive unchanged in a\nrational age. This does not mean that a rational age has no place for\nsentiments; it means that the sentiments must not affront reason. We\ncannot at once pride ourselves on being paragons of common-sense, yet\nslaves to a sentiment which common-sense must not examine too closely.\nLoyalty to that larger national family to which we belong: cordial and\ngenerous support of its interests: sacrifice, if need be, for its just\nambitions: pride in its worthy achievements, even in its worthier\nsuperiorities--these are useful and intelligible sentiments, and it is\nnot unreasonable to make a flag the visible symbol of these just\ninterests and achievements. But a blind and undiscriminating devotion\nto flag or king, a glorification of our national family above others\nin the roystering fashion of the Middle Ages, a refusal to ask if the\ndemands of our rulers are just or if the interests we are pressed to\nsupport are sound and equitable, an obstinate pride in a thing because\nit is British or German, whether it be wise or no--these are\nsentiments entirely at variance with the best spirit of our age. We\nmay recognise that even the crude old patriotism has contributed much\nto the advance of civilisation. This gathering of men into rival\nnational groups has forced the pace, and has at times developed noble\nqualities. But we must admit also that the same patriotism has\ninspired hundreds of unjust and stupid wars, and has maintained on\ntheir thrones kings and queens who ought to have been dismissed with\nignominy.\n\nThe progress of civilisation does not entail the suppression, but the\nrefinement, of sentiment, as is very plainly seen in the supposed\nimplications of patriotism. When it is urged that these absurd\nnational diversities of speech and coinage must be sustained on the\nground of patriotism, we ask at once which sound element of patriotism\ncould demand such an anachronism? It is, surely, only the spurious\nmedieval sentiment that could dictate so utter an absurdity! Will the\ninterests of England be endangered because we remove a very serious\nburden from its economic life and its educational activity? Shall we\nbe less prosperous, less happy, less respected, for correcting an\nantiquated and foolish practice? These things, we may reflect, were\nnot stupid at the time when they were developed. The resolute patriot\nmay, if he wills, take pride in the relative ingenuity of the people\nwho invented them. Each separate national system was the outcome of\nspecial conditions, and the slender commerce between the different\ncommunities at the time they were developed did not require a rigorous\ninternational standard. One bartered by the piece or the lump. But it\nis sheer folly to ignore the modern transformation of international\nlife: to fancy that our unwillingness to exert ourselves, even for our\nown advantage, may be ascribed to some lofty virtue.\n\nIt need hardly be said that I am not cherishing a dream of spreading\nat once over the entire planet a uniformity of language and coins and\nstandards. The leading civilised nations might, within a few years,\nadopt such a scheme; and a certain number of the smaller and less\nadvanced nations, which aspire to membership of the civilised group,\nwould probably accept the reform speedily enough. On the other hand,\nthe permeation of the lower races with our ideas would be a slow and\ndifficult process: a part of that general task of civilising the whole\nrace which we have sooner or later to confront. This difficulty does\nnot at all affect the advantage we should gain by adopting a scheme of\nunification within the family of civilised nations, and it cannot be\npleaded as a reason for postponement. But all the reforms I have\nhitherto discussed will, when they have spread over the more highly\norganised countries, find a temporary check in this chaotic jumble of\npeoples on the fringe of civilisation, and it may be useful to discuss\nthe principles which ought to inform our attitude toward them.\n\nOur generation looks out upon these backward branches of the race, not\nonly with a finer sentiment and a stricter regard for principle than\nany previous generation did, but with a very much clearer knowledge of\ntheir meaning. We may, of course, be faithless to our principles in\ncases: we may casuistically wrap a piece of frank buccaneering of the\nold type in hypocritical humanitarian phrases. The general attitude\nis, however, more enlightened, as these pieces of hypocrisy themselves\nshow. We may or may not hold the doctrine of universal brotherhood; at\nleast we understand the true relation of these more backward races to\nourselves, and we are in a much better position to determine our right\nand our duties. We have advanced considerably since, little more than\nhalf a century ago, a stern moralist like Carlyle could defend\nblack-slavery and denounce as \"a gospel of dirt\" the scientific\nrevelation which threw light and hope on inferior types of manhood.\n\nThe chief difference is that we now see the true relation of the lower\nraces to the higher. It is false to say, as Carlyle did, that some\nraces were created with higher gifts than others, and were therefore\ndivinely appointed as the master-races. The notion is as absurd as the\nold and profitable legend of the laying of a primitive curse on Ham\nand his black descendants. Difference of geographical conditions is\nthe chief clue to the unequal development of the various branches of\nthe race. I have in various works developed this theme and will not\nlinger over it here. You have at the start the same human material and\ncapacities in all the scattered groups. But some have been for ages\nisolated from the stimulating contact of races with a different or a\nhigher culture, and this is the essential condition of advance. Others\nhave, by sheer chance, been so situated that they enjoyed this\nstimulation in an extraordinary degree. On this principle we can\nunderstand the birth of civilisation in that fermenting mass of\npeoples which settled between the Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf\nages ago, and the direction of the advancing stream of culture, partly\neastward to India and China, but mainly in the more favourable\nnorth-western direction.\n\nIt is, therefore, no difference of aboriginal outfit, but a difference\nin the chances of migration and situation, which accounts for the\ncultural diversity of races. Yet we must not at once infer that any\nlower race can, on this account, be drawn from its isolation and\nlifted to the higher level. There is reason to believe that a race\nloses its educability if it remains unprogressive for too long a\nperiod. The physiological reason may be that the skull closes firmly,\nat a relatively early age, over the brain in a people in which\nexpansion of brain after puberty has not been encouraged. Take the\nthree \"lower races\" of Australasia. The Tasmanian was one of the\noldest and least cultured branches of the human family, and he died\nout within a century after contact with the whites. The Maori of New\nZealand is the most recent and most advanced of the three aboriginal\nraces. With the Polynesian, he is closely related to the European or\nCaucasic race, and is certainly educable. The Australian black comes\nbetween the two in culture and in the period of his isolation.\nAustralian scientific men who have made the most sympathetic efforts\nto uplift the black tell me that they have failed, and the race seems\nto be doomed.\n\nThese scientific principles have discredited the old legendary notions\nabout the lower races, but we must not as yet make dogmas of them.\nNothing but candid and careful experience will show which races are\neducable and which ineducable. It is very probable that such peoples\nas the wild Veddahs of Ceylon, the Aetas of the Philippines, the\nYahgans of Tierra del Fuego, and some of the Central African groups,\nwill prove ineducable. Other races which have been considered\n\"savage\" are already proving educable, either as a body or in\nlarge numbers of instances. Many peoples have not been tested at all.\nWe are only just at the fringe of this vast and interesting problem.\n\nIn regard to the races which, after humane and thorough experiment,\nprove entirely ineducable, the solution does not offer much\ndifficulty. Once their primitive habits are disturbed, and they begin\nto live on a pension allotted them by the European nations which have\nseized their territory, they gradually die out. A very good case may\nbe established by those writers who hold that races which cling\nincurably to barbarism ought to be painlessly extirpated, or prevented\nfrom multiplying. Such races as the Australian blacks are quite\nfamiliar with a process of sterilisation which does not interfere with\ntheir enjoyment of life. On the other hand, the life led by these\ndomesticated but ineducable savages is hardly worth preserving at all.\nHowever, as they are disappearing, one need not press that point. The\nclaim of sane humanitarians, that we have no right to interfere with\ntheir conditions and seize their territory, is quite unsound. The\nhuman family has a right to see large fertile regions of the earth\ndeveloped. Who regrets to-day that the Amerinds were pensioned in\norder to find room for Canada and the United States and Brazil and\nArgentina? Who does not see the advantage of peopling Australia with a\nfine and advancing civilisation of (eventually) twenty or thirty\nmillion progressive whites instead of a few hundred thousand miserable\naboriginals?\n\nAt the other end of the scale we have, as I said, peoples who are most\nprobably or certainly educable. At a hazard one might instance the\nThibetans and Siberian Mongolians, the Koreans, the Maoris and\nPolynesians, the Lapps (of the same blood as the Finns), and a large\nnumber of Asiatic and African peoples. We must keep in mind the high\ncivilisation reached by the Amerinds of Peru, whereas their modern\ndescendants, the Quichwas, seem so negligible. In Africa there is a\nvast amount of experiment and classification to do, and already the\npure Bantu races are furnishing scores of men who are susceptible of a\nuniversity education. I know several of them who are as competent and\nwell-educated as the average English university man.\n\nHas the white race a duty (\"the white man's burden\") to attempt\nto civilise the coloured races? I speak in general terms, of course.\nIt is sheer insolence to regard the Chinese or Burmese--one must not\nmention the Japanese--as lower races. Now, speaking in the abstract,\nas a matter of general moral principle, the white has no clear duty to\ncivilise the coloured races. The sentiment of brotherhood may inspire\na feeling of duty in some, but one cannot build firmly on that phrase.\nIt is, however, not an abstract ethical question. The white men have,\nin point of fact, spread over the globe, and they are in a fair way to\noccupy all the territory on which the coloured races (except the\nChinese and Japanese and Burmese) were settled. Only an attitude of\ngeneral unscrupulousness could ignore the obligation which this\nseizure of territory implies. England and Germany have, for instance,\noccupied the islands of the Pacific and made their inhabitants a\n\"subject race.\" They have done this, not only with a gross lack of\ndiscrimination between the Polynesian (who is certainly educable) and\nthe much lower Melanesian, but with a quite cynical idea of the\n\"civilising\" process. The work has been left to sailors and\ntravellers, who have decimated the population by spirits and syphilis,\nor to the crudities of Christian missionaries. The joy of native life\nhas been killed, and the enforcement of clothing (which the natives\nnaturally cast off in the cooler evening, when the sensitive European\nwas not able to see them) has led to an appalling amount of pneumonia\nand phthisis. We have done much to turn a wonderfully happy and\nhealthy people into a gin-drinking swaddled caricature of a Bank\nHoliday crowd.\n\nBut the lists of our crimes in dealing with the lower races need not\nbe given here. If we white people are to go out among the more\nbackward coloured races, and to profess that we are assuming the\npaternal function of administering their territory, we must act on\nsome principle. It is rather late in the history of the world to send\nout civilising expeditions which consist of missionaries presenting\ncopies of the Sermon on the Mount, and soldiers and merchants who, in\nflagrant contradiction to the Sermon on the Mount, exploit the natives\nand appropriate their soil. There must be a serious attempt to educate\nthem, and then an elimination of the unfit. Africa will prove a\nformidable region for this discriminating work. The Mohammedans\nthemselves have already proved that many of its peoples are capable of\nculture.\n\nWe have a special problem in our treatment of races which, like the\nHindus and Egyptians, have already been drawn into the white system.\nLet us be quite candid with ourselves in this matter. We appropriated\ntheir territory for our advantage, not theirs, and our professed\nmodern sentiments are compelling us to say that we are not in\npossession of their territory in their interest. We protect the Hindu\nfrom native despots, the Egyptian from a cruel Mahdi or Pacha, the\nretired official tells you. However, I do not propose that we should\ninvestigate the title-deeds of all our existing empires as regards\ntheir oversea possessions; nor do I in the least advocate the\ndismemberment of such large unities as the British Empire. But the\nprinciple on which some would stake our existence in India or Egypt,\nthe maxim that \"What we have we hold,\"--which is often illustrated\nby a picture of a particularly stupid-looking bull-dog guarding the\nBritish flag,--is the first principle of the pickpocket and the\nburglar. Modern sentiment has to grant colonial empires a sort of\n\"Bula de Composicion,\" such as the Spanish Church, for a\nconsideration, grants to pickpockets. The best compromise is that the\npeoples which are to-day linked in empires should remain linked; not\nas dominant and subject peoples, but as sister-nations working out the\ndestiny of the race according to the highest standards. This implies\nthat, as they assimilate Western culture (as the Hindus are quite\nrapidly doing), they shall be more and more entrusted with the\nadministration of their own countries. The very different situation of\ncolonies need not be discussed. When Australia and Canada find, if\nthey ever do find, that it is to their interest to set up complete\nindependence, they will not cut the cable: they will cast it off as\ncalmly and confidently as they now cast off the cable of an Orient\nliner on the quays at Sydney.\n\nAlong these lines we may forecast the future, and very slow, drafting\nof the more backward peoples into the homogeneous family of the more\ncivilised races. The unification of languages, coinage, etc., will be\ngradually extended to them. But it is not my purpose in this work to\ncontemplate remote tasks and contingencies. A great and practicable\nreform lies at our doors. The overwhelming majority of the race are\nalready incorporated in civilised nations, and the work of\norganisation amongst these is urgent and comparatively easy. I am not\nadvocating a fantastic and lofty scheme for which one needs to be\nprepared by the acceptance of advanced humanitarian sentiments. What\nI am pleading for is the application to international life of our\ntreasured maxims of common-sense and efficiency. Those simple and\nindisputable maxims condemn in the most stringent terms the patriotic\nshams which we suffer to perplex and burden our life. Let us run the\nplanet on recognised business-principles.\n\n\n CHAPTER IV.\n POLITICAL SHAMS\n\nTHE reforms I have so far advocated have one peculiar\ncharacteristic. They are urgent, easy to grasp, indisputable in\nprinciple, and enormously advantageous; but they need international\nco-operation, and we are only just beginning to form those friendly\ninternational contacts which may lead to agreement. Hence it is that,\nalthough very contentious reforms have already been realised, these\nlinger, as we say, outside the range of practical politics. But this\nvery phrase reminds us at once of another fundamental irregularity of\nour life. The man who thinks a proposal dismissed because it is not\nwithin the range of practical politics illustrates admirably the\nindolence of mind which I am assailing. If a useful and economical\ndevice were put before him in his business-capacity, and he were told\nthat his business had no room for it, he would at once ask what was\nwrong with the business. I am contending all through for the\napplication of this progressive spirit to larger concerns than stores\nor workshops. If our political system, to which we entrust these large\nconcerns, absolutely ignores some of our finest chances of profit,\nthere is something wrong with the system. Our servants are not doing\nwhat they are paid to do.\n\nAs I have already briefly contended, our recent experience furnishes a\nvery ghastly confirmation of this suspicion. The British Empire will\nsurvive the dangers that beset it, though it will be deeply impaired\neconomically, for two fundamental reasons: the Allies have double the\npopulation of the Central European Powers, and they have, including in\nthis respect the United States, far larger ultimate resources in\nmaterial and money. The fact that we do eventually muddle through\nwill, one fears, content the majority of our people, but the\nthoughtful patriot will ask two questions. How many hundred millions\nhas our slowness in mobilising our resources cost us, by protracting\nthe war? And what is likely to be the fate of the British Empire if,\nwith a similar slackness, it has at some later date to meet a\nnumerically equal and far more alert enemy?\n\nLet me briefly recount the facts which show that our national business\nhas been grossly mismanaged. Can any person look back on all the facts\nwhich are now public property and say that our soldiers and statesmen\nwere innocent in not perceiving the grave possibility of war with\nGermany at any time in the last three years? That, however, will\nscarcely be said: the readiness of our fleet is a sufficient reply. We\nknow further that the general character of the war was foreseen.\nEngland was to help France and Belgium, on French or Belgian soil.\nEngland's co-operation on land was, as events have shown, vitally\nnecessary. Yet the unpreparedness of Britain for a great continental\ncampaign was entirely scandalous. No doubt there would have been a\nrisk in openly enlarging the army or creating great stores of\nmaterial. Germany would, in its unamiable way, have asked questions.\nTender-hearted Members of Parliament would have denounced our\nprovocative proceedings. But a preparation of plans, a census of our\nresources, a scheme for the immediate enlistment of the\nbusiness-ability of the country and the full use of all our industrial\nmachinery--these and a dozen other most important measures could have\nbeen taken in this country as safely and secretly as they were in\nGermany. Not only were they not taken, but the military preparations\nwere actually relaxed. It has transpired, and is not disputed, that\nour great Arsenal was only partially occupied; and Mr. A. Chamberlain\nhas publicly stated that Kynochs had for the year 1914--the expected\nyear of war--a Government order two-thirds less than they are capable\nof executing in a week, and do now execute in a week.\n\nThe second fact is the remarkable failure to forecast the conditions\nof the war. If it be urged that a layman cannot judge how far such a\nfailure is culpable, the answer is prompt: the German authorities, who\nhad had no more experience of war than we, did forecast the\nconditions. Their minute and energetic elaboration of the whole scheme\nof the war contrasts extraordinarily with the sluggish and\nconventional ease of our authorities.\n\nThe third and gravest fact is our appalling and costly slowness in\nmobilising our resources when the war began. Six months after the\noutbreak of war I went over a very large engineering shop in the\nnorth. Out of hundreds of men only a score or two were engaged on\nwar-material: and one of the two objects on which this mere handful of\nmen were engaged has proved to be wholly valueless. At that time, and\nfor months afterwards, the workers of Britain were encouraged in their\neasy ways, and the bulk of the manufacturers were encouraged to go on\nwith their usual business, by official assurances that no greater\neffort was needed. When our disgusted soldiers sent us a message that,\nnot \"the weather,\" but a scandalous shortage of ammunition and\nmachine-guns kept them back, the Prime Minister, quoting the\n\"highest available authority,\" publicly declared this to be\nuntrue. We were asked rather to admire the way in which we had\ndispatched the greatest expeditionary force known in history: as if\nthe enormous progress of modern times did not make this superiority a\nmatter of course. When criticism increased, we cried for the gag and\nthe public prosecutor, and we garlanded the portraits of the very men\nwho had disgraced us; and we agreed to the retention or promotion of\nincompetent men, on obvious party-grounds.\n\nHappily one minister had the grit and patriotism to call to his aid a\ngroup of business-men, and the facts could no longer be concealed. Mr.\nLloyd George admitted that since the beginning of the war, we had\nincreased a thousandfold our production of munitions, yet were still\nfar behind the Germans and far short of our needs; and at last, eleven\nmonths after the outbreak of war, we began to organise, or at least to\nascertain, our resources. Again we loudly congratulated ourselves on\nour energy. We cried shame on all critics and pessimists and people\nwho wanted more. We fancied ourselves in the character of Atlas,\ntaking the whole burden on our massive shoulders, to spare our weaker\nAllies. But the sinister light which this late increase of output\nthrew on the first six months, or more, of indolent incompetence was\nquite disregarded. We genially overlooked the fact that the delay of\nour advance was costing us nearly a hundred millions a month. We\nallowed less prominent affairs to be conducted with the same indolent\ninsufficiency. The most absurdly inadequate measures were taken to\ncontrol the prices of food and coal, and scarcely a thought was given\nto the tremendous economic problem which will confront us when the war\nis over, or to the means of recouping ourselves by a systematic\npromotion of our oversea-trade.\n\nIn a word, the magnificent organisation and ordered national devotion\nof the German people make the conduct of England during the first year\nof the war seem clumsy, lazy, and full of danger for the future. For\nthis the chief blame quite obviously falls on our statesmen. English\nsoldiers have at least been second to none in the field: English\nartisans have, since the need was acknowledged, worked magnificently.\nIt is the directing brain that was sluggish and incompetent. The\nmagnitude of the sudden task does not excuse our rulers, nor does the\nvery large service that was actually done--which I do not for a moment\noverlook--lessen the scandal. If a political machine does not know how\nto enlarge itself in less than twelve months to meet a new and very\nurgent task, especially a task that it ought to have foreseen, it is\nunfit to control our national destiny. Our governmental system has\nproved itself most dangerously and mischievously unfit to meet such a\nnational emergency, and this catastrophic experience may encourage the\nreader to examine with patience the criticisms which I propose to pass\non it.\n\nHere again we submit to the tyranny of a largely obsolete tradition.\nWhen the story of the development of human institutions can be written\nwith a detachment of which we are yet incapable, one of the strangest\npages will be that which tells of the evolution of Church and State.\nFrom the early days when some exceptionally powerful warrior is raised\non his shield and saluted as chief or king, and when some weird\nindividual earns the repute of being able to control or propitiate the\nmighty powers of the environing world, government and religion\nsteadily advance to a commanding position in the life of the people.\nThe two men of power, the king and the priest, must have\nestablishments in accord with their value to the tribe, and the palace\nand the temple rise in spacious dignity above the mean cluster of\nhuts. Time after time the race turns to examine the tradition which\nhas been so deeply impressed on it, and kings and gods are cast from\ntheir thrones; but new dynasties always arise. Of Rome, no less than\nof Thebes or Nineveh, it is the monuments of kings and gods that\nsurvive. Only a few centuries ago the European city consisted mainly\nof two institutions: the palace and the cathedral. The bulk of the\ncitizens huddled in squalid fever-stricken houses beyond the fringe of\nthe estates of their secular and priestly rulers.\n\nThe modern age, with its inconvenient questions and its bold speech,\narrives. Commerce develops, and the palace and cathedral disappear, in\nthe forest of soaring buildings. When the roofs of the new commerce\nand the new commoner rise to a level with the roof of the palace or\nthe cathedral, when men are no longer overshadowed by the old powers,\nthe imagination is released. The divine right of kings goes in a fury\nof revolutionary flame: kings must henceforth rule by human right and\nanswer at a human tribunal, which is more exacting and alert than the\nold tribunal. Yet the power of the dead tradition is amazing. In England\nmen still bow reverently when the king addresses them as \"my subjects\"\nand talks of \"my empire\": still crown every entertainment, spiritual\nor gastronomic, with fervent aspirations which would lead an\nill-informed spectator to imagine that they regarded the king's health\nas mystically connected with the health of the nation: still describe\nbishops and the heads of families which have been sufficiently long\nidle and wealthy as their \"lords.\"\n\nThese arch\u00e6ological survivals are, no doubt, innocuous, if\nirritating. The more serious feature is that they help to make so many\npeople insensible of the miserable compromises we endure in our\nreorganised State. They are part of that superabundant ash which\nclogs and dulls the fire of the nation's life. The nineteenth\ncentury, rightly and inevitably, adopted a democratic scheme of public\nadministration. It was seen that, if the king were not so close a\nfriend of the Almighty as had been supposed, there was no visible\nreason why the destinies of the nation should be entrusted to his\njudgment: which was, as a rule, not humanly impressive. Luckily,\ncertain nations had won the right to do a good deal of talking before\nthe king came to a decision, or the right to hold Parliaments, and\nEurope generally adopted this model. The Parliament House now towered\nupward in the city, and it did the real business of directing the\nnation's affairs. The king became a kind of grand seal for the\nmeasures enacted by Parliament. Some nations, the number of which is\nincreasing, regarded the seal as a costly and avoidable luxury, and\nabolished it: some kept the king, with all his stately language and\npretty robes and sparkling jewellery, and abolished the \"lords\":\nsome kept the king and the lords, but deprived them of real power. The\nEnglish nation, which is famous for its common-sense, its audacity,\nand its ability, belongs to the last group. It invented that\nremarkable phrase, \"self-government\": which ingeniously preserves\nthe fiction that someone has a right to govern other people, yet\nconciliates the modern spirit by intimating that the people really\ngovern their governors.\n\nInto the extraordinary confusion of forms and formul\u00e6 which has\nresulted from this compromise it would be waste of time to enter. Does\nit really matter that we allow our king to put on our coins a\nflattering portrait of himself, with an intimation that he rules as\n\"by the grace of God\"? He is quite conscious that he rules us--if\nhis melodramatic relation to us may be called ruling--on the\nunderstanding that he never contradicts us. We are not now knocked on\nthe head, except by an intoxicated patriot, if we refuse to stand\nwhile our neighbours chant their insincere incantation about his\nhealth: we go, not to the Tower, but to the ordinary law-court, if we\nmention his personal frailties; and the portentous seriousness with\nwhich he takes his robes and his formul\u00e6 injures none, and amuses\nmany. No doubt, slovenly mental habits are always to be deplored, yet\nthese things are not in themselves important enough to be included in\na list of serious reforms. What we do need to examine critically is\nthis scheme of self-government by which we now manage our national\naffairs: very badly, it appears.\n\nThis political machinery is divided into two sections: municipal\ngovernment and national government. The former, from which every\nelement of \"government\" except the name has departed, need not be\nconsidered at length. It consists of groups of citizens who are\nunderstood to excel in public spirit and self-sacrifice, so that they\ndevote a large part of their time to the unpaid service of their\nfellow-citizens. Every few years a man, of whom you had probably never\nheard before, calls to implore you, with a quite painful humility and\ncourtesy, to allow him to discharge this self-denying function. The\nnext day another man, of whom also you had never heard before, calls\nto inform you, in discreet language, that his rival is a spendthrift,\na rogue, or a fool; and that _he_ is the man to represent you with due\nregard to economy and with absolute disinterestedness. You probably\nrefrain from voting for either, since you have not the abundant\nleisure of a libel-court. Your streets will somehow get paved, and\nyour children schooled, and you will pay the bill. But you may\ndiscover after a time that the air is thick with charges of\n\"jobbery,\" or that some local councillor has been promoted to the\nhigher and more lucrative political world on the ground of \"many\nyears' experience of local administration.\"\n\nIf you happen to live in the Metropolis, where the intelligence of the\nnation is clotted, so to say, you find municipal life even more\ncomplex than this. The eager rivals who solicit the honour of doing\nyour work for nothing are divided into bitterly hostile schools. Each\nschool spends hundreds of thousands of pounds in a periodical effort\nto convince you that the other school is going to swindle you. Each\nplasters the wall with repulsive typical portraits of its exponents,\nand you see yourself depicted as a weak and amiable, but small-witted,\nfigure (or, perhaps, as a burly and very stupid-looking farmer), whose\npockets are being picked. Each produces a most exact statistical proof\nthat its opponents have actually picked your pockets, and that the\n\"reds\" or \"blues\" are the only people with a really disinterested\ndesire to spend some hours every day in the gratuitous discharge of\npublic duties. They spend great sums of money every few years for the\npurpose of securing this thankless burden and facing the vituperation\nof their opponents. You seek illumination in the press, and you find,\nin rival journals, a mass of contradictory statements and mutual\naccusations of lying. However, the system is thoroughly British in\nits encouragement of individual action and public spirit, and you\novertook all the direct and indirect corruption it fosters.\n\nWhat is a man to do? One can at least search very rigorously the\ncredentials and the public action of the man who \"solicits your\nvote,\" and encourage the appearance of really independent and\nfine-spirited men and women. I have, naturally, described the broad\nfeatures and general abuses of the system, but there are, of course,\nlarge numbers of men in it who are sincerely disinterested. In the\nmain, however, municipal politics is tainted and complicated by the\nparty-system of the large political world, and to this we may turn.\n\nThat section of the political machine which controls national affairs\nis obviously of the first importance. On its working rests the grave\nissue of peace or war; to it is entrusted, in the last resort, the\ngreat task of educating the nation; and through it alone can we secure\nany of those numerous reforms which are to undo the tyranny of shams\nand abolish so much avoidable misery and confusion. One ought\ntherefore to be gratified to see how large a place politics occupies\nin the public mind, which is otherwise so little inclined to serious\nmatters, and in the public press, which so faithfully mirrors the\nthought of the nation: to see how the prominent or eloquent politician\nsurpasses in public esteem the greatest artist or scientist, and even\nrivals in popularity the prettiest actress of the hour: to see that\nfour-fifths of our public honours are reserved for politicians and\nstatesmen, and for those less gifted but more wealthy men who give\nthem practical support. Unhappily, when one looks closely into this\napotheosis of politics, one finds that its merit is merely\nsuperficial: that a very large proportion of the more thoughtful\npeople in every civilised community look on politics with disdain, and\nthat some of the more independent of our politicians confess that one\nmust almost lay aside one's honesty and ideals on entering the\npolitical world.\n\nA series of grave struggles and threats of civil war in the first half\nof the nineteenth century inaugurated the present political phase in\nEurope. It transpired after Waterloo that the English parliamentary\nsystem, in which our statesmen took such pride, was a hollow and\ncorrupt sham. A comparatively few wealthy landowners controlled the\nnation, and bought votes for their nominees. After some years of\nagitation the working men of the great manufacturing centres formed\narmies and threatened to force the doors of Westminster at the point\nof the pike. This elicited a system of restricted, but real, popular\nrepresentation. Later enlargements of the franchise improved the\nsystem, and to-day some six or seven million adult males elect our\nlegislators. Until recently this scheme was largely frustrated by the\npower of a non-elected House to suppress any measure which did not\nplease a privileged minority, but this is now materially modified. Six\nmillion free and adult representatives of the nation appoint and\ncontrol the men who make our laws, and direct the king how to act.\n\nBut in practice this admirable theory becomes a mockery and an\nillusion. It may be taken as a Euclidean postulate that out of six\nmillion people of any civilised nation four or five millions will\nbe--shall we say?--somnolent: not from want of brain, but from want of\nconstant exercise of it. A very earnest idealist of the last century,\nMr. George Jacob Holyoake, proposed that, for the great efficiency of\nour political machinery, every elector should, before he received a\nvote, be compelled to pass an examination in political economy and\nconstitutional history. Since few Members of Parliament, to say\nnothing of voters, would have passed the examination, the proposal was\nrejected, and the education of the voter was left to the interested\npolitical parties and to the press which supported them, or was\nsupported by them. The result was that two rival organisations,\nroughly corresponding to the two attitudes of the modern mind toward\nnew ideas (progressive and conservative), gradually increased in\nwealth and power until they were able to control the electorate and\nexclude from representation every finer shade of political thought.\nThe machinery by which this is done does not leap to the eyes, as the\nFrench say, and the average elector proudly contrasts our political\nsystem with that of most other nations.\n\nCandidly, we may take some pride in the contrast. The struggles and\nsacrifices of our fathers have won for us a system which is far\nsuperior to that which has hitherto prevailed in Russia, to the\ndespotic medievalism of Prussia, to the grave insincerity of Spanish\npolitical life, to the confusion and occasional corruption of French\nor Italian politics, to the remarkable activity which precedes a\npresidential election in the United States. Our political life is\nrelatively free from large corruption. I happened to be in New Zealand\nwhen the \"Marconi Scandal\" was agitating England, and I remember\npoliticians of that progressive little land smiling at the word\n\"scandal\" and hinting that they were more adventurous. Some of our\ndiscontent is, no doubt, due to women writers who magnify the evil in\norder to persuade us to enlist their refining influence. I do not, in\nfact, think that Mr. Belloc and Mr. Cecil Chesterton have proved some\nof the graver charges which they brought in their indictment of our\n\"servile State.\" It will need something more than a list of\nmatrimonial connections to persuade us that Mr. Lloyd George and Mr.\nWinston Churchill were in the habit of meeting, amiably and\nclandestinely, Mr. Bonar Law and Mr. F. E. Smith for the collusive\narrangement of our laws.\n\nYet there is enough in the familiar criticisms of our political\nmachinery to justify one in saying that the political sham is, even\nnow, intolerable. What, candidly, is the procedure? A general election\nis announced, and two men call, or send agents, to solicit the honour\nof representing you in Parliament. In the district in which I write at\nthe moment one candidate is a wealthy and muddle-headed Liberal: the\nother is a wealthy and (politically) equally muddle-headed\nConservative. Neither of them has the remotest idea of representing my\nnational wishes,--they would blush to be suspected of it,--and neither\nhas ever spoken in Parliament; so I have never yet voted.\n\nBut I am an eccentric man. Let us take a normal case. You notice, as a\nrule, that during the few years before the election a wealthy man has\nbeen openly suffered, or directed from his party-headquarters, to\n\"nurse\" the constituency. Hundreds will cast votes for him solely\nbecause they fear a withdrawal of his subscriptions to their chapels\nand football clubs, and of his open-handed philanthropy. As the\nelection approaches, another candidate appears. He also is, as a rule,\na wealthy man, and he spends between one and two thousand pounds in\ndisturbing the judgment and inflaming the emotions of the voters.\nPictorial posters, which might have adorned the walls of some Pyrenean\ncavern in the Old Stone Age, are massed near the doors of some dark\n\"committee room\" or spread over the town. The brain struggles\nfeebly with the contradictory statements of orators and journals. And\non the day of the election the two wealthy rivals for the honour of\nprinting M.P. on their cards, and the duty of voting as they are\ndirected by their superiors, flood the district, although it has an\nexcellent tram-service, with expensive cars and carriages, to take the\ntired working man to the poll.\n\nPossibly one of the candidates is not a wealthy man, and you begin to\nspeculate on the source of his thousand pounds, or even three hundred\npounds. Very few voters do inquire, of course; most of them would be\nsurprised to know how much a man spends in soliciting the honour of\nrepresenting them--he has usually a great contempt for them--in\nParliament. The more inquisitive voter, however, would discover that\nthe poorer candidate is in a special sense the representative of a\nparticular party, and he would touch the fringe of a peculiar and\ningenious system. I happened one day to mention to a friend certain\nadvanced opinions of a Member of Parliament. \"That,\" he said\ngrimly, \"will interest my father-in-law; he finances Mr. ----.\"\nThrough the party-organisation this wealthy and highly respectable\nmanufacturer paid the election expenses and part of the\nincome--Members of Parliament had not then a salary--of candidates or\nMembers in various remote towns. The manufacturer, or the various\nmanufacturers who do this sort of thing, will eventually be knighted\nor baronetted; their sons will have a chance of a secretaryship, or\neven of Cabinet rank. The secretly subsidised Member will go to\nWestminster, an automatic voter. In fact, since a candidate must\ngenerally have the sanction of the central organisation of one or\nother party before he can venture to solicit votes, even wealth does\nnot usually relieve him of the party-tyranny.\n\nWhat, then, is the party? It is not so much a creed as a wealthy and\npowerful organisation. Once it was a group of men who happened to have\nthe same ideas. By a natural evolution of organisation--one sees the\nsame thing in the evolution of Churches--it has become rather a\nmachine for impressing those ideas on men. In a sense, it is an\noligarchy. We must remember such facts as the dismissal of Mr.\nBalfour, and the powerlessness of Mr. Asquith to get rid of a certain\nMinister whom he disliked. The power of the front-benchers is not\nabsolute. But on the whole the party is an aristocracy of wealthy men,\ntitled men, and able men, which rules the country for a term of years.\nIts leading agents are the Ministers and Whips: the body of the party\nis an association for carrying out its will, and for adding the\nattractions of parochial entertainment and cheap club-life to the more\naustere cult of ideas. Its revenue is, to a great extent, secret; but\nthe annual lists of honours reveal very plainly that it conducts an\nunblushing traffic in such things. The reasons allied in the published\nlist are often too ludicrous for words. Privately one can often\nascertain the exact price.\n\nWith this wealth the party-aristocracy controls the electoral campaign\nand the elected Members. It has, further, at its disposal a large\nnumber of highly paid positions, or functions which lead to highly\npaid positions, or profitable little occasional jobs, or political\npensions, or a Civil List (which is grossly abused), and so on. These\nit dangles before the eyes of impecunious or ambitious critics. Here\nare two facts within my slender personal knowledge of these matters. A\nvery influential Socialist (my informant) was invited to a small\ndinner of the party-aristocrats and diplomatically informed that he\nmight be useful in office: another drastic critic was assured by a\nCabinet Minister, through a mutual friend (my informant), that nothing\nwould be done for him until he ceased to criticise.\n\nThe system is, on both sides of the House, corrupt, demoralising, and\nintensely prejudicial to the interests of the country. We found its\ndanger during the South African War, and we perceive it far more\nplainly to-day. What ought to be the brightest intellectual fire in\nthe land is sluggish, choked with ash, served often with inferior\nmaterial. The permanent departments of State which depend on it are\ncorrespondingly sluggish. In an emergency it--after a humiliating\ntrial of its own ability--turns to business-men. Its whole tradition\nand procedure are abominable. Men who are poor and independent may\nbruise their shins on the doors in vain. Men of no ability are\npromoted, even to peerages and the Cabinet, because their fathers\ncontributed much to the party's purse or prestige, and they\nthemselves will at least be loyal. Men who raise critical voices in\nthe House are snubbed and suppressed: men who criticise outside are\nsafely ignored. The ablest and the most sincere men in the party--men\nlike Sir Edward Grey and Mr. Lloyd George--acquiesce in all this.\n\nThe electoral system and the procedure of the House of Commons are\ndesigned to protect this monstrous scheme. The large fee which is\nexacted of candidates and the very large sums which wealthy men are\nallowed to spend on elections intimidate able and independent, but\nimpecunious, men. The election is spread over a week or two in order\nto give wealthy men, who may be relied upon to support the\nconstitutional parties, an opportunity of voting in several\nconstituencies, and in order that Ministers may give more aid to their\nweaker supporters. For the polling-day Saturday is avoided as much as\npossible, because on that day a larger percentage of the workers would\nvote, and they are apt to vote against the constitutional parties.\nCars and carriages are permitted because the candidates of the workers\nwill easily be surpassed in this well-known advantage by candidates of\nthe great parties. Minorities are hopelessly excluded from\nrepresentation, such as they would have under a system of proportional\nrepresentation, because they would send to the House a number of\nindependent Members who would disturb all the calculations of the Whip\nand all the tricks of party-government. Under a system of proportional\nrepresentation it would be quite easy for some scores of able and\nearnest men to secure election at very small cost, by merely\ncirculating declarations of their views; but this, or a grave increase\nof the Labour Members, would wreck the party-system, and therefore the\nmost democratic of our orthodox politicians maintain all the abuses\nand injustices of our system.\n\nThe division of constituencies is further designed to protect this\niniquitous and corrupt scheme. Universities, the City of London, and\nboroughs like Durham, Bury St. Edmunds, and Montgomery--each of which\nhas a population of less than 17,000 souls--have an equal right to one\nunit of representation in Parliament with Wandsworth, the Romford\ndivision of Essex, or the Harrow division of Middlesex, each of which\nhas more than a quarter of a million inhabitants. Eighty-three\nconstituencies, most of them having a large proportion of the more\nintelligent workers, have a population of more than 100,000 each:\nforty-four constituencies have a population of less than 40,000 each.\nIn other words, half the people of England and Wales elect 167 Members\nof Parliament: the other, and notoriously less intelligent half, elect\n323 Members of Parliament.\n\nFrom Gladstone downwards even our most \"democratic\" statesmen have\nacquiesced in these enormities of our electoral system; and they have\nmeantime expended much eloquence on the injustice of the Prussian\nsystem, and have expressed ardent hopes for the emancipation of the\npeople of Italy, or Bulgaria, or Persia, or some other remote land.\nYet these features of our electoral scheme are retained solely in\norder to protect the party-system: to keep in the hands of a group,\nwhich is largely hereditary and is at all events a small and jealous\ncaste, all the prestige and emoluments of the higher positions. Even\nthe grave peril of a national catastrophe, owing to this restriction\nof power and responsibility to a group of moderate talent, does not\nshake their tradition. We shall, when this war is over, see them\nresist reform as energetically as ever.\n\nWithin the House of Commons itself a mass of old rules and customs are\nmaintained for the same purpose. The hours of work are still arranged\non the old supposition, that a Member of Parliament is a man who, with\ngreat self-sacrifice, devotes a large part of his time gratuitously to\nthe service of his country. The most important work in the nation's\neconomy is relegated to the hours when every healthy man is disposed\nto rest and recreate himself: indeed, the more important the issue at\nstake, the more certain it is to be discussed during the worst working\nhours out of the twenty-four. One has only to glance at our\nlegislators on their benches after dinner to realise the significance\nof it. The majority of them are plainly reconciled to the theory that\nthe heads of the party have done the necessary work during the day:\n_their_ business is to keep sufficiently awake to vote correctly.\n\nThe arrangement of business is not less iniquitous. The Ministry\ndecides that certain measures of reform are needed, either in the\ninterest of the people or in their own interest, and, since they have\nan assured majority of \"Ayes,\" the lengthy debate is almost\nsuperfluous. The passing of the measure has been secured in advance,\nor it would not be put forward. The rare event of miscalculation, and\nthe still rarer event of independent action, need not be regarded. No\nMember is, even in these cases, influenced by the long and tiring\nspeeches which are made about the matter. At one time the debates had\na certain elocutionary elegance, at least; now they represent an\nunattractive sham-fight, and abuse is being increasingly substituted\nfor rhetoric. The most paltry trickery is employed on both sides,\nbecause every man is aware that his speech is really addressed to his\nfollowers outside the House, and he must, _in_ the House, rely on\nquite other devices than eloquence. Yet all this pseudo-gravity is\nlightened occasionally by sittings in which some measure of the\ngreatest importance, but not introduced by the Government, is treated\nas flippantly as it would be in a humorous debate during a long\nsea-voyage.\n\nIf a man is instructed by his constituents to represent in the House\nsome special need of theirs, or some public reform which has millions\nto support it, he finds that \"the rules of the House,\" or the\nrules of the oligarchy, will not allow him to introduce it. A very\nsmall fraction of the time of the House is granted for the discussion\nof such proposals; but the debate is farcical, and is often looked\nforward to in advance as such, because everybody knows what will be\nthe issue, even if a majority of the House really favours the\nproposal. Measures of grave social importance, like women-suffrage,\nhave been arbitrarily crushed by the oligarchs for thirty years,--as\nearly as 1886 women-suffrage had 343 supporters on the benches,--and\nthis tyranny and injustice of a few ministers have led to the most\nviolent and bitter recrimination.\n\nThis is the political machinery to which we entrust the most dedicate\nand momentous issues of our national life, and to which we have to\nlook for the realisation of our most treasured hopes of reform. The\nimpartial critic will not question that there are men in the political\nworld as eager for reform as he, or that during the last half-century\nsome excellent social legislation has been passed. These measures are,\nhowever, due in great part to a studied endeavour to retain or gain\nsupport in the country,--the Insurance Act, for instance,--and many of\nthem--relating to the sale of cigarettes, to the admission of children\ninto public-houses, to the flogging of procurers--are small\nsentimental reforms which occupy time that could be better employed.\nWe think that we open a new epoch of civilisation when we give a very\nsmall pension to a very aged worker, but the problem of the roots of\npoverty or the abolition of warfare does not enter the party-programme.\nOur bishops enthuse over their success in inducing a complaisant Home\nSecretary to lay the lash on the backs of a sordid little group of\ncriminals, and even offer to roll up their own lawn sleeves for the\njob; but they are indifferent, or hostile, when other people would\ninduce our Ministers to amend those brutalities of our marriage-laws\nwhich tend to foster prostitution.\n\nThis political machine must be radically and comprehensively reformed\nbefore it can be a fit instrument for the reform of the nation. All\nthe pyrotechnic distractions and gross irregularities of an election\nmust be suppressed: all plural voting must be abolished: the comedy of\ncars for feeble voters must be forbidden: all indirect bribery, either\nof voters or candidates, must be rigorously punished. Candidates must\nput a simple and sober statement of their views and proposals before\nthe electorate, and no further expense should be permitted. Some\nsystem of proportional representation and secondary elections should\nensure that large minorities would not be entirely without\nrepresentation. The election should be confined to one day, preferably\na Sunday, and stripped of all melodramatic nonsense and occasion for\ncorruption.\n\nThe party-system will, no doubt, long survive in English political\nlife. Within twenty years or so the word \"Conservative\" will, as\nin other countries, pass out of use, and the Conservative elements\nwill unite under the banner of \"Liberalism,\" in opposition to\n\"Labour.\" It is, of course, the dread of this issue which at\npresent unites the constitutional parties in opposing reform. One can,\nby studying advancing countries, even foresee a next phase. The\nConservative elements will unite in a \"Labour\" party against the\nSocialists; and in the dim future we may, like Anatole France, foresee\na Socialist commonwealth established and an Anarchist party furiously\nassailing it.\n\nBut, though the party-system be retained (very much modified by\nproportional representation), this disgusting sale of honours and\noffices, this oligarchic tyranny over the House and the\nconstituencies, will not survive. Reform of the electoral procedure\nwill enable a large group of independent men--independent of the large\nparties--to enter Parliament, and the removal of the Irish and other\nMembers, who concentrate on a single issue and are willing to traffic\non other issues, will reduce the old majorities. I do not doubt that\nfresh complications will arise. The weakness of proportional\nrepresentation is that it will certainly lead to a number of sectarian\ngroups. \"We Catholics\" will, of course, return Catholic Members,\nready to sell their votes on various issues in the interest of the\nsect; and the Baptists and Methodists, and so on, will be tempted to\nretort. We shall have a teetotal group, and a Puritan group, and an\nanti-wallpaper group, etc. We must hope that the sterner education of\nthe electorate will secure that these trivialities do not endanger\ngrave national interests. The dissolution of the old Conservative\nparty will leave the Liberal party unable to defend its abuses; it\nwill have no opportunity of collusion or retaliation. So we may have\nin time a political machine--a body of men, appointing their own\nleaders, soberly chosen by each 100,000 of the population, regarding\nParliament as a grave national council, not a theatre for the display,\nof wit and rhetoric--which will effectively carry out the will of an\nadvancing people and enlist the interest of the most thoughtful.\n\nI am in all this assuming that sex-barriers and privileges will be\nentirely abolished, but I prefer to discuss the position of woman in\nits entirety in a later chapter. It must be explained, however, that\nin taking 100,000 as a unit of representation, I am contemplating an\nelectorate of thirteen or fourteen million voters. Something between a\nhundred and two hundred Members of Parliament are surely sufficient,\nand would make a much more practical and alert body than our present\nstuffy, sleepy, and overcrowded House.\n\nIt seems very doubtful if a Second Chamber, in any form, is a real\nsocial need. A House of \"Lords\" is, of course, an insufferable\nanomaly and medieval survival. It is amazing that this hereditary\ntransmission of titles--and such titles!--and wealth has so long\nsurvived the stinging raillery that men like Thackeray poured on it\nlong ago: it is still more amazing when we measure the intelligence\nand public spirit of our \"lords.\" Even if we weed out the less\nintelligent, or those whose interest in horses or actresses or\ntheology is more conspicuous than their interest in the nation's\naffairs, it is preposterous that such a body should retain the least\ncontrol of a properly elected House of Commons. We may trust that\nbefore many decades all hereditary titles will be abolished, and this\nwill demolish at once the name and the more offensive part of the\ncharacter of the Second House. The idea that because one had a\ndistinguished or fortunate or unscrupulous ancestor, or one has large\nestates or an American wife, one is fitted to control our legislators,\nis too ludicrous for discussion. It is sometimes pleaded that they\n\"have a large stake in the country.\" One may surely reply, not\nonly that they would do well to have their large stake more ably\nrepresented, but that poverty has an even greater and more pressing\nright to representation.\n\nAs to the bishops, it is still more difficult to discover why they are\nallowed to control secular legislation. They have been chosen for\ncertain doctrinal and administrative functions, partly because of\ntheir ability to discharge those functions, partly because they had a\nconvenient income, and partly because they could command political or\ndomestic influence. But even the men who have earned a mitre because\nthey were admirably fitted to wear it, and could hold together a large\ngroup of clergy with conflicting doctrinal ideas, are not obviously\nqualified for the work of legislation. Their record in the legislative\nassembly is deplorable. They have for ages blessed our militarist and\nbellicose traditions. They have, in their own interest, resisted\nnearly every important social reform until recent years, and even now\nthey display a keen social sense only when there is question of\nflogging a few score of perverts, or something of that kind. They have\nno place in a modern political system, and their presence in it is an\nanachronistic reminder of the time when they monopolised education.\n\nAnother element of our Second Chamber consists of men who have been\npromoted from the First Chamber, generally in order to watch the\ninterest of their party, or made peers for public service or service\nto the party. The various creatures of the party are one of the abuses\nwe have to correct. Even the others are of questionable value. Is Lord\nMorley more judicious, or more alive to the highest interests of the\nnation and the race, than the Right Honourable John Morley was? Does\nage give wisdom to Lord Gladstone, or did it enhance that of Lord\nRoberts? Is it not a fact that nine men out of ten adopt a sluggish\nand reluctant attitude in age, and are unfitted to deal with the\nproposals of middle-aged men? There is, at all events, occasion for\nvery careful discrimination, whereas our present practice is to\nreward, indiscriminately, a supposed merit or a service rendered to\nthe party with a seat in the \"Upper\" House.\n\nThe third class of peers calls for the same observation. Success in\nmanufacture or finance or law, or a willingness to give large sums to\nthe party-funds, is not an obvious qualification for controlling\nlegislation. While these men are in the prime of their vigour and\njudgment the nation dispenses entirely with their services. We invite\ntheir co-operation in the national business when they are understood\nto be too old and inelastic to attend any longer to their less\nimportant commercial concerns. It is, in fact, impossible to frame a\nreally impressive plea for a Second Chamber of any description. I\nventure to say that if an historical inquiry were made into the\nservices rendered by Second Chambers since the beginning of the\nparliamentary system, it would be found that they have rendered little\nor no real service, while they have obstructed the work of reform in\nevery land. Their record--the first thing we ought to consult--condemns\nthem emphatically. If the Members of a Second Chamber are not elected\nby the people, they invariably consult class-interests: if they are\nelected, they, as one sees in Australia, are superfluous.\n\nThis political system is completed by the royal assent to Bills and\nthe royal power to choose Ministers. The former is now an idle form:\nthe latter is an intolerable abuse. If the people are self-governed,\nthe leading agents in the Government are Ministers of the people, not\nof the king. The Members of Parliament ought to choose the Ministers.\nKingship is a medieval survival, and it is inconsistent with a clear\nand practical conception of the nation's business to retain these\narchaic forms and institutions. The trend of political evolution is\nvisibly from kingdoms to republics. A \"monarch\" in the twentieth\ncentury is as anachronistic as a \"lord\"; an hereditary monarch is\nan outrage of modern sentiments. Once more, we need to test the\ninstitution by its historical merits or demerits.\n\nMany people seem to regard our Constitution much as certain lowly\ntribes regard the mysterious stone which has dropped from heaven\namongst them. Some even of our politicians display a kind of\nfetishistic terror if a measure is projected that seems to them to\ninfringe or enlarge our Constitution. They brandish their spears\nbefore the idol and talk of shedding their blood in its defence. They\nare at times \"Balliol Scholars,\" or something of that kind, yet\none would suppose that they were quite unaware how our Constitution\narose, and what plain and indisputable right we have to revise and\nimprove it. It is a sort of ancient mansion to which a modern owner\nhas added billiard-rooms and workshops and a garage. But it has\nassuredly not the \u00e6sthetic charm of a medieval building, and this age\nof ours needs to reconsider, if not reconstruct, it. It will be a fine\nday for England when we have a Royal Commission sitting in judgment on\nour Constitution: calmly discussing, amongst other matters, the\nexpediency of asking the throne to retire on half-pay, and all its\nparasites to retire on no pay.\n\nI have already described the changes which are likely to occur in that\nlarge political structure, the Empire. The various regions of the\nearth which constitute it cling together on the understanding that we\nare quite insincere when we talk of them as our \"possessions.\" It\nis a federation of free nations, bound together by thinning ties of\nblood and by the advantage of a collective defence. When the military\nsystem is abandoned there will merely be a somewhat faded and amiable\nsentiment uniting the imperial fragments to each other more closely\nthan to their nearer neighbours. One may hope that they will remain\nunited, for a large empire is a good thing, if it has large ideals: it\nis a university of civilisation. But unless we purge our\ncorrespondence of archaic forms the \"Colonies\" may grow impatient.\nThe Colonial of the third generation, and often of the second, has\nvery little respect for England. Candid Australians would make some of\nour Imperialists tremble with concern. Our colonial \"governors,\"\nof course, report that loyalty is undiminished, because a few hundred\nfamilies in Melbourne and Sydney press with undiminished snobbishness\nto their garden-parties. These ornamental nonentities ought to be\nwithdrawn. Perfect sincerity in our relations with the Colonies will\ndo most to maintain the federation. The splendid co-operation of\nAustralia and Canada in the war has shown that we have little to fear.\n\nIndia and Egypt form a special problem, complicated by the fact that,\nin their condition of dependence, they are large and nutritious fields\nfor the employment of our sons. It would, however, be foolish to\nignore the great change that is taking place in them. Hindus tell me\nthat, when Lord Morley became Secretary of State, the advanced\nNationalists sent him a private message to the effect that they would\nco-operate with a humanitarian like him; and he snubbed them. A very\nlarge proportion of them are beyond the stage of being impressed by\n_durbars_, and are impatient that the masses should be kept in that\nchildlike state of mind. We set up a fictitious \"Oriental\nimagination,\" and try to make the Orientals live down to it. The\nexample of China and Japan ought to have destroyed our illusions about\n\"the East.\" The difference is one of culture, which may at any\ntime be changed. We shall have to deal more frankly and generously\nwith Egypt and India, or else cease to rail at Prussian or Russian\ndespotism.\n\nHowever, Imperialism is not a grave or pressing problem. The Empire\nwill run its destined evolutionary course. For us the grave matter is\nthe corruption which clogs our political machine and the perverse\ntradition which prevents the multitude from seeing it. The awarding of\nhonours and lucrative positions should be withdrawn entirely from\npoliticians, because, even if we compelled them to publish accounts,\nthey would still add to their resources or prestige by this inveterate\ntraffic. The king might at least render us the service of purifying\nthis department of national life: perhaps have a list prepared by the\nPrivy Council and checked by independent inquiry. I remember how Sir\nLeslie Stephen told me that he shrank from being added to the\ninglorious list of mayors who had entertained princes or coal-owners\nwho had financed elections or built chapels. This would cut one of the\nchief roots of our present political corruption, but we need to press\nfor a thorough education of the people. It must realise that the\npolitical machine is dangerously clogged and sluggish: that its\n\"democratic\" character is a sham: and that its energy is wasted on\nmeasures which are insignificant in comparison with the mighty tasks\nof education, pacification, and industrial organisation which it ought\nto undertake.\n\n\n CHAPTER V.\n THE DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH\n\nIN the last sentence of the last chapter I spoke of education,\npacification, and industrial organisation as the three monumental\ntasks of a reformed political system. If the supreme object of a\ncentral administration--the sooner we cease to talk of \"government\"\nthe better--is to make a people healthy, prosperous, and happy,\nthese are surely the three reforms to which it will most resolutely\napply itself. I have spoken of the very grave and pressing\nnature of one of these reforms: the need to abolish militarism and\nwar. Later chapters will deal with education, in the very broad and\nrich meaning which I assign to the word. Here I would sketch the\nproblem which seems to me to weigh heavily on us in connection with\nthe distribution of wealth and the present disorganisation of\nindustry.\n\nIt is useful sometimes to imagine ourselves in the year 3000 or so\nlooking back with critical eye on the twentieth century. One pictures\nthe future historian--some narrowly specialised expert on the social\nlife of the second decade of the twentieth century--discoursing on us.\nA strange and interesting people, he will say. They boasted of their\nintelligence, and they really did display a creditable measure of\nintelligence in their research and their applied science. They\nregarded themselves as far superior in humane sentiment to the Middle\nAges, to which they properly belong, and they put forward many\nexcellent vague proposals of social improvement. Yet it is not easy to\nunderstand their slavery to ancient prejudices, sometimes of a quite\nbarbaric character. A superficial observer would say that the\ncontradiction was due to their unhappy practice of leaving the\nmajority of the community at a low level of culture, so that the\nintelligent minority were checked by a slower-minded majority. But it\nis a singular fact that some of the most intelligent men among the\nminority, such as Mr. A. Balfour and Mr. F. E. Smith, held much the\nsame views as the agricultural workers, and made a kind of religion,\nwhich they called Conservatism, of this obstinate retention of old\ntraditions. They seem, with all their pride in their culture, to have\nmistaken their place in the evolution of the race. No people is\nentitled to be called civilised which complacently tolerates war,\nsqualid and widespread poverty, dense areas of ignorance, political\ncorruption, and the many other remnants of barbarism which they\ntolerated. The twentieth century was the last hour of barbarism, lit\nby a few rays of the civilisation which dawned in the twenty-first\ncentury.\n\nIf the infliction of pain and misery is, as I believe, the worst form\nof crime, this retention of war and poverty is the gravest of our\nsocial transgressions. But the guilt of our generation in regard to\nthese two crimes is very unequal. The way to abolish war is clear, but\nthe remedy of this other open sore of our social organism, a poverty\nwhich stunts and embitters the lives of millions in every large\ncivilisation, is not at all clear. The plain man who, oppressed by the\nspectacle of this desolating, unchanging poverty, seeks a remedy in\nsocial literature, is at once beset by a dozen rival theorists. The\nSocialist, the Anarchist, the Eugenist, the Malthusian, the\nSingle-Taxer, and other austere thinkers press on him their\ncontradictory formulae and their mutual abuse; these in turn are\nassailed contemptuously by men who are not less acquainted with\neconomic matters; and the older political parties observe, with a\nsigh, that poverty seems to be an inherent evil of every industrial\norder, and we can do no more than mitigate its hardships. To this last\nposition the plain man usually comes.\n\nLet us grant at once that the older political parties have done much\ntoward the alleviation of poverty. No one who is acquainted with the\ncondition of the workers a hundred years ago can hesitate to admit\nthis. Impatience is too rare a virtue, it is true, but this does not\ndispense us from cultivating wisdom. A great deal has been won, and\ngenerally won by the middle class, for the oppressed workers. Between\n1830 and 1880, at least, thousands of middle-class men were working in\nEurope for the advance and enlightenment of the workers. The old\ndoctrine of _laissez-faire_ has been forced to compromise with\ndecency. We have entirely abolished the horrible exploitation of cheap\nchild-labour which was common early in the nineteenth century. Our\nFrancis Places and Robert Owens have won for the worker the right to\nform Trade Unions, and others the free education of his children. We\nno longer permit the employer to fix the conditions and hours of\nlabour as he wills. The cotton-worker of Manchester, labouring twelve\nor fourteen hours a day, and living in a squalid cellar, one hundred\nyears ago, would be amazed if he could visit the factories and homes\nand places of amusement of his grandchildren. Even the poorer workers\nare no longer left to God and the clergy; while the bulk of the\nworkers have numbers of cheap luxuries which would have seemed an\napocalyptic dream to the worker of Napoleon's day.\n\nBut let us not imagine that we have got our axe into the roots of\npoverty and are in a fair way to abolish it. This is one of the most\ndangerous fallacies of our age; and against that comfortable assurance\nI, knowing well all that has been done, plead that not one of our\nreforms makes for the abolition or the material restriction of\npoverty. We pension the very aged worker and the still more aged\nwidow: on the pauper scale. We build substantial, if rather cheerless,\nhomes for the destitute, and we put warm, if ignominious, clothing on\nthe back of the orphan. We appoint minimum wages, and permit maximum\nprices. We have labour bureaux, and district visitors, and a Salvation\nArmy, and a Church Army. All of which means that we give a drink to\nthe crucified; it might be well to study if we can cease to crucify.\n\nThe plain man or woman who earnestly wishes to help in the improvement\nof life will inquire first, and most resolutely, what the actual range\nand depth of poverty are; will study, secondly, how far our measures\nof reform afford us any hope of curtailing it; and will, in the third\nplace, ask whether there is any other way of action which does offer\nsome hope of restricting, if not removing, the evil.\n\nIn the mind of many people poverty means that somewhere in the darker\ndepths of our cities, happily remote from the shopping centres, there\nare a number of people who, from lack of skill or excess of drink,\ncannot find regular employment, and must live. ... One does not know\nexactly how they live, but certainly on unpleasantly short and dry\nrations. In earlier times one dropped a half-sovereign into the\npoor-box at church for these creatures, if they would come to church\nand learn resignation. To-day one subscribes to the Charity\nOrganisation Society or the Salvation Army, or joins one of the many\nenterprising associations which are going to make the poor richer\nwithout making the rich poorer. We have a social conscience. We\nbelieve in _laissez-faire_, but, being humane, we will not push it to\nextremes. At the same time, being sensible men, we are not going to\npush humanitarianism to extremes. The phrase-maker is the great\nbenefactor.\n\nFor a first acquaintance with poverty I would recommend a man to spend\na few hours, some Saturday evening, among those markets of the poor\nwhich still line many of our more dingy thoroughfares. As the night\ndraws on, and the oil-lamps begin to flare and splutter over the\nstalls, the grim courts and narrow streets of the district discharge\ntheir grey streams of life upon the market. There is plenty of\nlaughter, you observe; there are plenty of round-faced matrons, with\nclean, honest eyes and comfortable dress. \"We ain't got much\nmoney, but we do live,\" I heard one of them remark, in an interval\nbetween bursts of raillery. The wives of regularly employed, and often\nnot ill-paid, workers are there, as well as poorer folk. But study\nsome of the quieter figures which move slowly among the throng or\nlinger enviously before the cheap shops. Notice the puny, shrivelled\ninfants, with quaint staring eyes, which, at the door of the\npublic-house, lie lightly in the arms of women whose faces are bloated\nwith drink and coarse food: the lean and ragged boys and girls, with\nhollow and prematurely sharpened eyes, who hang about the\nfruit-stalls, ready to dart upon the rotten castaways, or foster, in\ndarker spots, the premature sex-development which will drain their\nscanty strength: the woman who, with drawn face, waits near the Red\nLion to see how many shillings her sodden brute of a husband will at\nlength hand her for a week's shopping: the weary old couple who have\nseen better days, and now pass in silence through the babel of\nvulgarity: the haggard-faced widow in mouldy black who hides her\npaltry Sunday dinner in a worn bag: the eager eyes of the poorer\nhawkers, which light up pathetically when a penny comes their way: the\nmen whose faces change at a drunken jibe into such faces as we have\nseen behind the bars of a cage in a zoological garden, and the crowd\nof men, women, and children rushing to enjoy the gratuitous spectacle\nof a fight: the cheap, middle-aged prostitute, whose features are a\ncaricature of the features of woman.\n\nYou may see these things in all parts of London--north, south, east,\nand west--every Saturday evening, and many other evenings, all the\nyear round. You may see them in all the other large towns and cities\nof Britain, and the cities of France and Germany and the United States\nand all other \"great civilisations.\" I have studied them on\nSaturday nights in half the cities of Britain: in Amsterdam and\nBrussels and Cologne, in Paris and Nice, in Venice and Rome and\nNaples, in New York and Chicago: and in the light of our historical\nresearch one sees their ancestors in all the great cities of all the\ngreat civilisations that ever were. As it was in the beginning ... But\nthat refers to the glory of God.\n\nFollow to their homes these more pathetic figures of a London crowd.\nYou need not do so literally, for more observant and sympathetic\nvisitors have been there before you, and they told London long ago, as\nfar as London was willing to hear, how the majority of its citizens\nlive. Mr. Booth's book, _Life and Labour in London_, had better be\nsuppressed when its work is done, lest the men and women of a more\nhumane age learn too much about us; also Mr. Rowntree's book, which\nshows this same fetid poverty lying at the feet of a superb minster,\nthe symbol of ages of ecclesiastical wealth and power; and many other\nbooks. Let me summarise the relevant record of the natural history of\nLondon.\n\nWe may begin with the lowest depth, with life as it is lived in some\nof the streets which still linger about Covent Garden, and in east and\nwest and south. We are beginning to see the grim humour of tolerating\nthe existence of these hotbeds of corruption under the very shadow of\nour marble palaces of justice and our marble hotels for millionaires,\nand we are destroying them; but the life remains still in sufficient\nquantity to fill a large town. In tenements of this order fifteen\nrooms out of twenty are indescribably filthy. Legions of bugs lurk by\nday behind the faded rags of ancient wallpaper or in the crevices of\nthe unwashed floor, or even venture forth as securely as if they were\nconscious of free citizenship in these places. The \"windows\" are a\nrough mosaic of dirty glass and roughly plastered paper. The ceiling\nis pale black, the floor filthy. A table, one or two dilapidated\nchairs, a kind of bed--the \"landlord\" would, in most cases, not\nraise two shillings on the lot--and an entire family of ragged,\nvermin-eaten human beings fill this foul box, which is often only\neight or ten feet square.\n\nThese people are thieves, cheap prostitutes, hawkers, porters,\ncharwomen, flower-sellers, ragmen--the most pitiful of the irregulars\nwhich we suffer, age after age, to live and breed and die beyond the\nextreme fringe of our industrial army. Sometimes they have nearly as\nmuch food to eat as a workhouse-idler: generally not. Drink--the vile\nmixtures of the cheaper public-house--they have more constantly; and\ntheir children are not in their teens before they are familiar with\nall the vice and crime and brutality which seven out of ten of these\nrooms breed as naturally as they breed lice or bugs. In winter the\ndoors and windows are sealed, and men, women, and children huddle\ntogether or, at times, crouch over a few lighted sticks. And year by\nyear, century by century, babies are ushered into this underworld in\nedifying abundance, to live its ghastly life until the yellow frame\nand dull brain are worn out.\n\nShocking, you will say, but happily rare. Do you know that, according\nto the best authorities, 50,000 men, women, and children in London\nalone live in this atmosphere of squalor and brutality and chronic\nhunger?\n\nLet us pass to the next higher circle of the modern Inferno--the\ncategory of casual or very badly paid labour and chronic poverty, the\nmakers of your cheap furniture and clothes and brushes, your\nmatch-boxes and chocolate-boxes, the hawkers and costers and regular\nporters and dockers. Now there are generally two rooms to each family,\nbut the vermin still thrive in more than half of them, and the rooms\nare filthy, and the children breathe an air that is foul with drink\nand cursing and the most open and gross sexuality: not now in fifteen\ncases out of twenty, it is true, but in ten cases out of twenty. Food\nis habitually insufficient, for labour is uncertain, and profit is\ninfinitesimal; and, as a man _must_ drink, there are constant\ndisturbances to break the monotony and help one to forget the\ncustomary hunger. You may have at times noticed the dejected hawker\nreturning, on a wet summer's day, with his tomatoes unsold: or the\nchildren eager to collect fragments of the lids of orange-boxes in the\nwinter. Countess Russell told me that she once visited, unexpectedly,\na group of homes of this class, within a few minutes' walk of Gordon\nSquare, in the depth of winter. Hardly any had the material for a\nfire, and few had food in the house. So they live, year in, year out;\nand all that we propose to do is to give them five shillings a week\neach if they will sustain the burden honestly for six decades, or\nhouse and feed them in jail if they do not succeed in curbing their\ncriminal impulses.\n\nOnce, in the Westminster Court, I saw a young and humane judge hand\ncertain tickets to the jury, when they had established the guilt of\ntwo petty criminals of this class. \"These, gentlemen,\" he said,\n\"are permits to inspect the jail; go some day and see the place to\nwhich you send criminals.\" A very wise and benevolent innovation,\nbut we still await the judge who will send the jury to inspect the\nhomes in which these men conceive crime.\n\nAbout 400,000 citizens of the greatest city in the world belong to\nthis class. If 400,000 do not constitute a sufficiently important\nproblem, let us see the homes of the next category. These are the\nirregularly employed and badly paid, though not the worst paid,\nworkers: costers, labourers, dockers, etc. There are about a million\nof them in London alone. They know quite well what hunger is: for\nweeks together, sometimes, the wage does not suffice to buy that\nminimum quantity of nitrogen and carbon which men of science have\ndeclared to be necessary, and the money is ill expended. They know\nwhat cold is, for many a hard spell of winter finds them in want. They\nhave two or three rooms to each family, but, as a rule, not much of\nthat \"Christian reticence\" on which our clergy congratulate us.\n\nTo the great majority of these million and a half of London's poor,\nsexual pleasure is the one cheap luxury; and we encourage them to\nbreed industriously. My wife, with other ladies and gentlemen,\naddresses them on the subject from the tail of a cart in South London,\nand teaches the heavy-burdened mothers how to avoid having so many\nchildren; and the leader of this little group was sourly and\nmenacingly (and quite falsely) told by a distinguished Churchman,\nsitting in a Royal Commission, that they were breaking the law of the\nland. A friend of mine has been hounded out of the United States by\nthe police for attempting to give similar information to the poorer\nmothers of New York.\n\nEven in this third and very large category of London homes there is\nmuch filth; and the windows, across which is drawn an odd cloth or a\nragged and dirty curtain, abound in broken panes. They have periods of\ncomparative plenty, when the children get boots and socks, and their\nelders soak in beer and may even venture to a cinematograph show, if\nthe crude pictures on its garish fa\u00e7ade promise a sufficiently silly\nor sufficiently bloody programme. All that the police and the clergy\ncare about is that not more than an inch or two of underclothing are\nexhibited in these places. They have also periods of want, when the\nclothes go to the pawnshop, and life runs on the exasperating,\nbrutalising lines of the lower class. The daily round of life is\nitself stupefying. At five or six they are dragged out of an\ninsufficient sleep, and they dully take their tea (of a kind) and\nbread and margarine on a dirty table. After ten or twelve hours of\nanxious quest of minute profits they return home for a slightly better\nmeal--a kipper, perhaps, or a few bits of cheap meat--too tired in\nmind and body to do more than smoke and drink. They have plenty of\nfun, of a sort, and take their tragedies lightly; but the angels, if\nthere are any, must fold their wings over their faces at the aspect of\nthese fellow-immortals. Even a politician might be expected to blush\nfor this self-governing democracy. It is a squalid, degrading,\nstupefying life, below the level of civilisation.\n\nNearly one-third of the citizens of London do not rise above this\nlevel. The three classes that I have described, or the mass of people\nwho spread continuously over these classes, were found by Mr. Booth to\nnumber 1,300,000 of the four and a half million inhabitants of the\ncity. The figure for the Greater London of to-day is, of course,\nimmensely higher. \"The submerged tenth\" is a most unfortunate\nphrase. It leads many, who know little of these matters, to suppose\nthat only a tenth of the inhabitants of London are very poor. The\ntruth is that a tenth live in a condition of misery, filth, and\ndegradation of which the ordinary decent citizen can form no\nconception. They are the shirkers, the abnormal, and the worst casual\nworkers. But the life of this further million--or nearly one-fourth of\nthe total inhabitants of the Metropolis--the irregular or badly paid\nworkers, is a grave and accusing problem to every man of decent\nsentiment. Their condition is not consistent with civilisation.\nCertainly large numbers of them live clean and cheerful lives, but\neven in these cases it is scandalous that sober and willing toil\nshould receive wage enough only to secure cleanliness and the\nnecessaries of life; while a far larger number sink under the burden,\nand are dirty, intemperate, gross, and improvident.\n\nConceive the extension of this class all over Britain: the further\nvast contingents of this army of poverty in the slums of Glasgow and\nLiverpool and Manchester, in all our great manufacturing and shipping\ntowns, even in the heart of pretty rural England, where the wretched\nwage and low standard and large family stunt and degrade our\nagricultural worker. It is a very serious error to imagine that this\nis merely an unhappy issue of the crowding in our great cities. In\npicturesque and highly respectable York Mr. Rowntree found that thirty\nper cent. of the citizens lived in very real poverty: that ten per\ncent. did not earn money enough to buy a normal and sufficient\nquantity of plain food, to say nothing of luxuries.\n\nThis is the problem of poverty. If you want it in figures, a fourth of\nthe inhabitants of London, where rents are appalling, live on from\neighteen to twenty-one shillings weekly per family, and some hundreds\nof thousands live on less than this. One might with some profit and\npertinence go on to inquire into the life of the half of the\npopulation of London who are described as \"comfortable workers.\"\nWhether the little luxuries they have are a fit reward for the hard\nwork they usually do, whether there can be any development of\ndistinctively human powers among them, whether we may cherish a\nfeeling of entire security in basing our political system on that\nfoundation, are questions worth putting; and some day they will put\nthem to us. But it is better for the moment to confine ourselves to\nthat pitiful fourth of the community which lives in degrading poverty\nbecause it has only irregular or wretchedly paid employment. Is it an\nexaggeration to suspect that this vast acreage of poverty will make\nthe future historian hesitate to class us as civilised?\n\nOur social structure is of the nature of a pyramid. At its apex,\nglittering in the sun, calling forth our pride and praise, are culture\nand wealth and power, and all the fine things they bring into\nexistence. At its base are the supporting stones, crushed into the\nsoil by the towering mass: the millions of stunted or brutalised\nlives. I know both extremes of this social order, and I have felt,\nhundreds of times, that if it is permanently to retain this pyramidal\nform, the refined lives and great achievements of the few resting on\nthis broad base of squalid and undeveloped lives, civilisation is an\nimpossible dream. I have felt that, if men and women realised the full\nmeaning and range of poverty, they would suspend the progress of art\nand science, of commerce and industry, for a hundred years, if need\nwere, in order to concentrate the best intelligence of the race upon\nthe search for the remedy of this vast disorder. And, if it be true,\nas I think, that these people, once dead, are dead for ever, and that\nthe tradition of a hundredfold reward in heaven for their privations\non earth is an illusion with which pastors and masters have reconciled\nthem to their burdens, I would, if I could, send that assurance like a\ntrumpet-blast through the slums of the world and make this vast army\nof the stricken summon us, the intelligent minority, to a tardy\njudgment.\n\nI do not, as will appear later, advocate the equal distribution of\nwealth. I do assuredly not plead that one who has wealth should give\nit to the poor: to see it gather again, perhaps, in less worthy hands.\nI add the contrast of wealth at this point only in order to make quite\nsensible the darkness of the life of millions. One's first task is\nto establish, with what faint power the pen has, the appalling\nmagnitude of the evil. If any very large number of us did really grasp\nthe human significance of these facts and figures, the industrial\nproblem would not long be resigned, as it is, to bloodless economists\nand obscure propagandist bodies.\n\nAnd the second aim of those who would see the world bettered is, as I\nsaid, to inquire into the effect of the remedies we actually trust and\napply. Here we enter the mistier region of controversy, and I can but\nset out the grounds of my sincere convictions.\n\nOf labour bureaux, in the first place, it will not be doubted that\nthey are an advantage to employed and employers. They are an advance\ntoward organisation. They bring the worker more promptly to the work\nthat awaits him. But they, obviously, do not add one iota to the\ninsufficient work, for which myriads are struggling: they do not add\none penny to the wage that is earned: and they are of little or no\nservice to the poorest workers, who chiefly concern us.\n\nOld age pensions and insurance and free education are, similarly,\ngreat advantages to the workers, in which we may justly take some\npride, but they do not promise to abolish or greatly diminish poverty.\nThe pension, or the insurance benefit, is necessarily granted on the\npoverty scale, and is in some sense a recognition of it as one of the\npermanent institutions of life; and the elementary instruction which\nwe give has raised the qualifications for work, as well as the\nequipment, so that the proportion of unemployed, or ill-employed, is\nlittle changed. Nor would it be entirely wrong to say that, in\nrelieving the poor man of the direct charge of education and\ninsurance, we have put the difference on his rent.\n\nOf our poor-law system, that lamentable compromise with a stupid old\ntradition, it is difficult to speak with patience. The able-bodied\nidlers of our workhouses and our countryside are a mockery of the\nworkers. The tramp, the professional idler in search of idleness,\nmaintained in his repulsive ways by an undiscriminating system of\npoorhousing and by a large body of \"charitable\" women, is one of\nthe quaintest survivals of an older order. His father idled through\nlife before him, and he in turn drags along the road a mate and\nchildren who will sustain the ignoble tradition. He ought to be\nwashed, clothed, and put on an industrial estate; and, if his disease\nprove incurable, he ought to be an\u00e6thetised out of existence, or at\nleast prevented from reproducing his like.\n\nThen there are the emigration societies. One fears that in large part\nthey transport to the colonies either the men whom the colonies do not\nwant, the men who will enlarge the slum-area of colonial cities, or\nthe men whom we ought not to spare. At the best, emigration is a means\nof leaving the problem of poverty to our grandchildren, who will find\nno more open spaces for the dumping of our human surplus. In point of\nfact, however, apart from the dispatch of a small proportion of\nspecially prepared boys, emigration is not affecting our problem of\npoverty. The half-million very poor of London, with the corresponding\nhundreds of thousands in our other cities, do not make emigrants at\nall; and very few of the next and far larger class are, or could be,\nfit for agricultural deportation.\n\nLastly of these devices which the less thoughtful are apt to regard as\nrelieving poverty, we have the Salvation Army, which is quite the most\npreposterous social sham of our age. But its religious-social\nburlesque, its pretentious concealment of bad results and loud\nproclamation of good results, its refusal to print a plain\nbalance-sheet from which a social student can measure the definite\ngood done and the cost of it, its undercutting of existing work, and\nso on, have been sufficiently exposed to excuse us from dwelling on\nit. It contains some earnest men and women, and has had undoubted\nsuccesses, but the system is too nebulous, garrulous, and wasteful to\nmerit serious attention.\n\nLet us turn to graver matters. The mass of the workers, apart from the\nmore advanced bodies of Socialists and Syndicalists, believe that the\nsolution of the problem of poverty will be found in the development of\nTrade Unions and of the political power of Labour. By political power,\nwith the aid of sympathetic members of the middle-class, they have won\nthe right of combination and a whole code of labour-laws; by an\nincreased political power, ultimately a political all-power, they will\nsecure all the legislation they deem expedient.\n\nIn spite of the distraction of many of the workers by Anarchists and\nSyndicalists, who despise political action, and in spite of the\nrestrictions of the franchise which are maintained by the older\npolitical parties, it seems plain that at some not very remote date\nthe workers will control the world. Ever since the door of the\npolitical world was opened to Demos, eighty years ago, he was certain\neventually to reach the throne, no matter how long he might be seduced\nto tarry by the way. Those who think otherwise must put their trust in\nthe permanent unintelligence of the workers. The interests of the mass\nof workers are so far identical that they must finally combine to\npromote them. We are plainly moving, all over the world, in this\ndirection. In Australasia, where the virgin soil permitted an\nexceptionally rapid growth, we see the farthest point yet reached, and\nwithin a decade or so Labour will have unshakable power all over\nAustralia, at least. \"Conservatism\" has already disappeared, or\nchanged its name to \"Liberalism.\" In Germany and France and\nBelgium we see the same disposition of the rival parties to unite in\nface of advancing Demos. In England there are signs that we shall at\nno distant date see a similar redistribution of political forces, and\nit is anticipated in the United States. In all countries the political\nenergies are slowly gathering about two poles: Liberal (including the\nold Conservatives) and Labour. Even in such countries as Spain,\nRussia, Turkey, Japan, and China the initial stages of the development\nmay be detected. When the workers at last unite and secure an absolute\nmajority-power, they will legislate on familiar lines. Wages will\nrise, hours of labour will be shortened, and place will be found for\nlarger numbers of workers.\n\nIt is little use moralising on this change. It is coming on like the\ntide. There will, no doubt, be temporary abuses of power, as there\nhave always been, but the workers will learn the vital needs of an\nindustrial order, and they will not starve the roots of their new\nprosperity. Let us assume that a state of equilibrium has been\nreached: that the workers have paramount political power, and wages\nare considerably increased. Does this promise a solution of the\nproblem of poverty?\n\nI am purposely leaving out of account the contemporary growth of rings\nand trusts. Paradoxical as it may seem to say so, they are not an\nessential element of the problem. The employers will (as is happening)\nform unions in face of the men's unions, and the strain laid on\nindividual employers and small companies will favour the growth of\ntrusts. In so far as these make for economy, they are clearly useful;\nbut no doubt they will be tempted to use their monopoly to dictate\narbitrary prices. When, however, the workers have a majority-power,\nthey can either slay the trusts or draw their teeth. On the other\nhand, a beneficent or labour-saving trust will not afford any\nadvantage to the less skilful workers, who make up the great army of\nthe poor, and it will reduce prices only by an unimportant fraction.\nThe chief significance of trusts is that they tend to annihilate the\nindividualist employer, who was once considered an indispensable\ninstitution, and they may thus dispose obstinate admirers of the older\nindustrial order to welcome a radical change. They are more deadly to\nthe middle-class than to the working-class.\n\nThe really vital question is whether the raising of wages and\nreduction of hours, accompanied by a large amount of secondary\nlegislation to the advantage of the worker, will solve _the_ social\nproblem: which is not the problem of the existence of a few thousand\nprostitutes, but the problem of the existence of, in every country,\nseveral million people who live in privation and squalor, and cannot\ndevelop human personalities. On this I offer two or three\nobservations.\n\nDoes the price of commodities rise in proportion to the rise of wages?\nIf it does, the securing of a nominally higher wage is clearly a\ndelusion. This seems, however, to be our experience. In England,\nduring sixty or seventy years of trade-combination, wages have risen,\nand hours and conditions of labour have been improved, to a remarkable\nextent, in spite of open competition in an overcrowded market. But\nprices and rents also have risen, and it is not clear that there has\nbeen a net advantage to the worker. It is very difficult to answer the\nquestion precisely, because other factors (such as the application of\nscience) have increased the productiveness of labour and have\ncheapened certain commodities (books, clothes, pictures, tea, etc.).\nThe workers have shared these advantages, and are in a position of far\ngreater comfort than they were formerly. But in seriously testing the\nclaim and promise of the Trade Unionist and the Labour politician we\nhave to endeavour to subtract the improvement in the workers'\ncondition which is due to the application of science, and of better\nmethods, to production and distribution. When we make allowance for\nthis, it is certainly not clear that the rise of wages shows a margin\nover the increased price of commodities: that, in other words, the\nhigher wage is a real advantage.\n\nIt is difficult to see how it could be otherwise. When wages are\nraised, who pays the increment in the cost of production? The employer\nor the consumer? It is a familiar experience, and an inherent\nnecessity of our industrial order, that the consumer does; and the\nconsumer is the worker--the middle-class or wealthy consumer generally\ngets the difference in other ways. It would be bold to say that our\nemployers have paid even a fraction of the increased wage out of their\nown pockets. More usually they put a fifth of a penny on commodities\nwhen the worker has secured a sixth. Competition alone restrains them,\nand this is largely superseded by agreements. We have had innumerable\ninstances of this during the war. Class after class of workers claimed\na higher wage, and prices rose higher and higher \"on account of the\nincreased cost of production.\" If a Labour Government were to\nprevent employers from increasing the cost of commodities and raising\nrents in exact proportion to the demand for higher wages--were, in\nother words, to direct the employers to pay the increase of wage out\nof their own profits--we should soon see the end of this industrial\norder. The State would be compelled to become the employer.\n\nThis seems to be true of practically all the legislation which a\npolitical power of Labour could secure. Compensation, pennons, and\ninsurance are typical instances. The new demand on the employer's\nprofits is met in one of two ways: he withdraws voluntary\ncontributions to these or similar purposes, or he raises the price of\nhis goods. The larger consumer meets the burden by raising his rents\nor fees. The unreflecting worker imagines that \"the country\" pays\nfor these things; he forms, in this respect, a larger proportion of\nthe country than he thinks.\n\nThe second and more important consideration is that this power to\ndictate wages and pass measures in favour of the workers does not hold\nout a prospect of absorbing that surplusage of labour which is our\nreal problem. I am assuming that even the poorer and unskilled workers\nwill have their unions and their share of the political power. Their\nwage will rise, and the price of their food and clothing and rooms\nwill rise; but it is of greater consequence to reflect that the less\ncompetent workers on the fringe of the industrial army will receive\nlittle advantage. Some benefit they will certainly have, since the\ncurtailment of hours and the slowing of the pace of production will\nmake room for more workers in each industry; though we must remember\nthat the pay of these new workers will either be taken from the older\nworkers, whose hours are shortened, or--which comes to the same\nthing--will be put on the commodities. The total production will not\nbe increased, and the employer will not relinquish his profit. In any\ncase, even this method of finding room for more workers will affect\nrelatively few.\n\nAgain I may quote the experience of Australia, where the workers have\nvery great power. In Melbourne, alone, in 1913, I found 30,000 men\nunemployed; and there and in other cities the tainted area of poverty\nand distress was increasing. All the elaborate organisation and\npolitical power of the workers could not add to the sum of available\nwork and thus absorb the surplus of labour. I am contending that until\nwe do this we do not solve the poverty-problem. The chief cause of\nthis appalling social disease is the inequality of natural\nendowment--either of muscle or nerve--in face of an unorganised system\nof production. There is not work, with regular and decent wage, for\nall. The weaker, the lazier, the more drunken, and the slower of\nintellect, are crowded out of the ranks and driven to casual\nemployment. This is the tap-root of poverty, and the benefits secured\nfor those who are in regular employment will not affect it.\n\nThirdly, this labour-legislation will not touch the second chief root\nof poverty, the extreme inequality of the distribution of wealth.\nSince wealth is, in this regard, a fixed quantity,--we are not\nconcerned here with the effect of fresh applications of science to\nproduction,--an accumulation of commodities at one point leads to\nthinness at another. I am not pleading for equality of income. Many\nworkers have an exaggerated idea of the gain they might have by an\nequal distribution of wealth. The total annual income of the\npopulation of the United Kingdom is now believed to be about\n\u00a32,400,000,000. If this were distributed equally amongst the heads of\nour ten million families and our large army of unmarried workers, the\nresult would be barely \u00a3200 a year; and the equalisation of taxation,\nthe granting of substantial pensions, etc., would further reduce it.\nThere is, however, no serious need to discuss this idea. I see no\nmoral principle which forbids that we should reward a man according to\nhis productiveness or inventiveness or other value to the community,\nalthough his fellows are not responsible for their lesser capacity;\nand it is idle to speculate on some imaginary phase of human\ndevelopment in which the more gifted and more useful will refuse to be\nmore richly rewarded than the less useful.\n\nBut it does not follow that the community has no right to control the\ndistribution of wealth. At one time such a proposal would have been\nbranded \"robbery.\" To-day even Conservatives do not threaten to\nremove the death-duties and graduated income-tax by which we\nconfiscate some of the wealth of the more fortunate. The only question\nis, to what _extent_ we may or ought to prevent the excessive\naccumulation of wealth, or to disperse it after accumulation.\n\nThere occur at once two methods of enrichment which invite careful\nattention. One is the power to transmit wealth to one's descendants\nin perpetuity, or until they choose to dissipate it. Most of us will\nadmit that in a social order at all resembling our own--and I do not\ncare to speculate about Utopian or imaginable orders--the power to win\nadvantages for one's children as well as for oneself is a sound\nincentive to work. But the wish to relieve one's descendants of the\nneed to work, to make them for ever a burden on the community, is a\nperverse ideal. It is one of those unsound primitive traditions which\nwe detect in the actual stream of our ideas and sentiments, and\ninstances are not unknown in our time of such holders of hereditary\nwealth revolting against the tradition. When we realise that this\ninherited wealth means, in plain terms, the right to have a hundred or\na thousand fellow-men working for us or our descendants in perpetuity,\nfor no merit or service on our part, and when we consider the folly\nand waste which so commonly follow large inherited fortunes, we must\nregard this tradition as evil and indefensible. One wonders how long\nthe working community is going to sustain this burden, and how long\nrefined men and women will imagine that they have a right to live like\nOriental potentates because they had a shrewd or a gifted ancestor.\n\nIt is sometimes said in their favour that they employ labour with\ntheir wealth. I have heard bishops give them this foolish consolation.\nAs if the wealth would cease to exist, and to employ labour, if it\nwere in the pockets of a thousand men, instead of the pockets of one\nDuke of Norfolk or Duke of Westminster! The only difference would be\nthat this wealth, instead of paying a thousand servants and\ntradespeople to work for the comfort of one family, would pay a\nthousand men, who would lose nothing by the change of employment, to\nproduce comfort for a thousand families. Meantime, the Duke is\nembarrassed by his wealth, or spends it on superfluous things, and the\nthousand families live in vicious misery. Their babies die for lack of\ngood milk in the hot summer, and the rich youth or maiden--I have\nknown this done--carelessly takes a bath of milk. Let us understand\nclearly this economic truth: great wealth is the accumulation in one\nman's hands of the right or power of a thousand families to employ\nlabour.\n\nThe second source of wealth which invites consideration is the\nunearned increment on ground-values, or any other unearned and\naccidental increase of value. It is now very commonly admitted that\nthis belongs to the community, and I need not enlarge on it.\n\nWe have, as I said, admitted the community's right to interfere with\nthis scandalous clotting of wealth, and no doubt a Labour-majority\nwould increase death-duties until money could not be transmitted\nbeyond, at most, the third generation, and not in quantities\nsufficient to make men and women a lifelong burden on the working\ncommunity. Possibly some day there will be a general scrutiny of\ntitles to wealth: not merely as far back as the enclosure of the\ncommons a hundred years ago, but back to the landing in this country\nof William of Normandy. Possibly a day will come when men and women\nwill conceal the fact that their ancestors \"came over with the\nConqueror,\" since it generally implies that the descendants of those\nlucky adventurers have not done an honest day's work since that\ntime. Possibly the sons of some of our \"captains of industry\" of\na century ago will burn the family records, lest some prying historian\nshould learn by what horrible exploitation of child-labour the fortune\nwas made. Prescriptive right is a purely artificial right created by\nthe community, and it may be withdrawn by the community.\n\nSuch measures as these a Labour Government will, no doubt, eventually\ntake, and they will do much to relieve poverty and increase the\nproduction of commodities of general use. But they will add rather to\nthe comfort of workers who are already above the poverty-line, and\nthey will not prevent an excessive accumulation of wealth, though they\nmay finally disperse it. This means the continuance of deep poverty.\nAs long as a gifted man may amass a fortune in a comparatively short\ntime, without adding to the wealth of the community, there will be\nsqualid poverty somewhere.\n\nIn sum, if the political ideal of Labour were fully realised, it would\nnot put an end to, and might not very materially lessen, our\nwidespread poverty. It would not enlarge the amount of available\nproductive employment, and so the weak in body or mind or character\nwould still form a pitiable army of slum-dwellers. It would, having no\nmore control of industry than the present Parliament has, be unable to\nmeet any grave disturbance of the industrial world, such as the\nrelease of hundreds of thousands of workers by disarmament. It would\nhave no power to secure for the workers their full share of the\nadvantage of any new application of science, and it would be unable to\nguide into new positions the men displaced by this application. We\nshould continue to suffer the disadvantage of an imperfectly organised\nindustrial system; each new enlistment of the great forces of nature\nor of the cunning of science in the service of man would enrich a few\nand impoverish many. In order to meet all these grave difficulties--in\norder to do more than secure certain advantages for the better\nequipped workers--a Labour Power would be forced radically to alter\nits principle and undertake the organisation of employment.\n\nThis organisation of industry seems to be the only device which will\ngradually restrict, and finally abolish, poverty. The opposition to it\nof middle-class workers and of so many artisans is unintelligible. It\nis time that we ceased to confine the term \"workers\" to the poorer\nand less cultivated caste among those who work: time that the lawyer\nand actor and housewife claimed that honourable title no less than the\ncarpenter or navvy. In restricting the term to manual and badly paid\nworkers we have concealed from ourselves the real community of\ninterest of all who work. All of us, except those who live on the\nlabour of others, have an interest in the proper organisation of the\nwork of the world and the removal from our shoulders of this\nintolerable burden of the irregular workers and the idlers. The\nmiddle-class has an even greater interest than what is narrowly called\nthe working-class, because the tendency of Labour-legislation is, and\nwill increasingly be, to put the heavier charge, not on large\nemployers, who easily evade it, but on the middle-class generally.\nHere again the war has luminously illustrated our position. Both\nemployers and employed (in the current industrial sense) have made\ngreat profit by it: the middle-class generally has suffered severely.\nA proper organisation of work would have prevented this.\n\nIt can easily be shown that this national organisation of employment,\nwith graded incomes according to service rendered, is the only remedy\nof poverty. The chief root of poverty is, as I said, the insufficiency\nof properly paid work, and this is entirely due to the haphazard and\nunsystematic nature of our industrial order. The private employer\nlooks only to the actual demand of commodities, or to the actual funds\nfor buying commodities. He has no interest in the moneyless\nunemployed; indeed, he finds it a convenience to have a large number\nfrom which he may select his workers. As a result, a large proportion\nof our people are unable to demand their normal share of commodities\nbecause they are not employed, or because they have no wage; and they\nare not employed because they do not demand commodities. Plainly, the\ncommunity alone can alter this paradoxical state of things; and, since\nthe community is now compelled by its more humane sentiments to carry\nthe poor on its shoulders, it may at length be induced to see that it\nwould be better to set them on their own feet. In a properly organised\nindustrial system a worker will be paid by the commodities which he or\nshe actually produces, or their exchange-value. There can be no such\nthing as a superfluous worker. It is only a lamentable issue of our\nperverse pre-scientific system that millions must lack the food and\nclothing and luxuries which they themselves could and would, under a\nmore orderly system, produce.\n\nThis implies, of course, the transfer to the community, at a just\npayment, of the land, the mines, and the means of transit, and the\ngradual extension of municipal enterprise to productive and\ndistributive industries. I am contending only for principles, and\nwould refer the closer inquirer to such detailed constructive works as\nthose of Mr. H. G. Wells. It would be futile to construct a rigid\nscheme of collectivist organisation. Such industries as the press,\nliterature, art, etc., present difficulties which it would be foolish\nto override. But these affect comparatively few workers, and it is\npedantry of an unintelligent kind to wrangle over them while we have a\nclear case in regard to other industries which involve many millions\nof workers. We would do well, however, to remember that the\nmiddle-class industries themselves are overcrowded and chaotic, and\nthat most members of that class would gain by organisation, wherever\nit is possible. Instead of shrinking from it and inventing\ndifficulties, we ought to be eager to discover its possibilities.\n\nI ignore also certain more or less academic objections which have been\nmade against this proposal to organise employment. Mill's essay _On\nLiberty_ is a monument of the futility of this kind of reasoning. Mill\nwas a civil servant, and, except in the case of the idle and criminal,\nno restriction of individual liberty is proposed other than that which\nMill cheerfully endured. Middle-class men are apt to take fright at\nthe word \"Socialism.\" It ought to be by this time generally known\nthat half a dozen very different theories pass under that name, and it\nis particularly unintelligent to confuse the extreme and the moderate\nproposals. Nearly the whole of the employment in any civilisation\ncould be organised without laying on any who are willing to work a\ngreater restraint than is laid on officials of the postal service. As\nto \"confiscation,\" it will be gathered from an earlier page that I\nfavour generous compensation to actual holders of land or mines, but\nno perpetual pensions.\n\nI do not anticipate from this change all the advantages which some\nSocialist writers expect. Their schemes of high universal prosperity\nseem to me to have an absurdly slender basis of actual work. Mr.\nWilliam Morris conjectured that if all of us were to work for four\nhours a day there would be enough produced for all of us to live in\nluxury; whereas Mr. Sidney Webb calculates that it would need six\nhours' work a day, on the part of all, to produce the necessaries of\nlife. It is true that a very large body of middlemen, commercial\ntravellers, footmen and other servants, and duplicate workers in rival\nindustries would be set free for sound productive or distributive or\nprofessional work; but the easing of the hours of our actual workers,\nthe removal of the young from the market, and other collateral\nimprovements, must be taken into account. If we take one hour a day\nfrom the actual workers in our heavier industries, we absorb at once\nmore than a million new men without increasing production. In any\ncase, it is lamentable to dangle before the eyes of men the ideal of\nworking only four hours a day. We want more of Browning's gospel of\nwork with cheerfulness. No doubt the idea is that, if the hours of\nlabour are reduced, the leisure will be employed in reading Bergson\nand mastering Brahms. This optimistic theory seems to be at variance\nwith our experience. Improvement of financial position more usually\nmeans the substitution of Bass or Dewar for cheap ale, and of stalls\nfor the gallery at the variety theatre. A later chapter will, however,\ndiscuss our interests in this connection.\n\nThe fact remains that collectivism is the only remedy of poverty. The\nredistribution of wealth, or the prevention of excessive wealth,\nwould, in my view, add comparatively little to the wages of the\nmillions; and we must not put to the credit of an economic scheme the\nprofit of such changes as disarmament. It is not this, but the note of\nefficiency, organisation, and economy which appeals to me in the\nSocialist ideal. It would abolish a vast amount of duplicate and\nunnecessary work, and it would conduct to their proper place in the\nindustrial order the large army of casual workers. London or New York\nis a colossal monument of industrial inefficiency. Our chaotic mass of\nduplicate and triplicate rival grocers, bakers, butchers, etc., our\nrival railways and other purveyors and producers, with their separate\nstaffs and their appalling waste in advertisement, are a reproach to\nour intelligence. We want an orderly and economical system both of\nproduction and distribution, and only the municipality (or else a vast\nand tyrannical trust) can conduct it. Most of all we want a power that\nwill sweep the myriads of costers, hawkers, newspaper-youths,\nflower-girls, casual porters, loafers, musicians, etc., off our\nstreets, and put them to productive work. We want a great curtailment\nof certain luxury-industries and fictitious industries. This would\ngive us an immensely increased volume of productive work, and a great\nsaving in distribution. The middle-class has not less to gain than the\nworkers by such a scheme of organising our resources, and it offers us\nthe only confident prospect of abolishing poverty and crime and\ngradually uplifting the mass of the people.\n\nNaturally, we should for a long time have to deal with a great deal of\nrefractory material. Idleness and crime are diseases, and they ought\nto be treated by the methods of modern medicine: scientific, humane,\nsometimes surgical. Certainly we would exercise \"tyranny\" in\ndealing with these. Probably in a properly ordered society all\ncitizens would be enrolled in an industrial register. The\nhyper-sensitive would have the same guarantee of privacy as under our\nincome-tax system, and the police would have a most effective means of\nlocating the criminal. Any who were permanently refractory, or showed\nan incurable disposition to revert to crime or to the vagrant\nindustries which disgrace our cities to-day, would have no moral right\nto burden us with their existence. The community would offer work and\nsufficient wage to all. The rest might disappear into segregated\n\"homes of idleness,\" or, if we are as wise as we ought to be, into\nlethal chambers.\n\nThis incurably refractory group would, however, probably prove smaller\nthan many believe. We are at present a little too much inclined to\nconsult scientific theorists about heredity (which is still very\nobscure in science) and too little inclined to make social\nexperiments. I am assuming that a dozen other reforms would proceed\nsimultaneously with the reform of industry. Education would no longer\nconfine itself to giving an elementary literacy to children, without\nany further care what use they make of their literacy; it would, as I\nwill suggest later, seriously concern itself with the adult\npopulation. A bolder treatment of the housing question would stimulate\nthose who have evil traditions; we should not confine ourselves to\nbuilding clean rooms for them, which they might make filthy if they\nwished. Prudential restriction of the birth-rate would be impressed on\nthe poorer class, with great benefit to themselves and their children\nand the State. Eugenic proposals might be practically formulated and\nencouraged. We should not expect industrial betterment to have some\nmystic or magical effect of itself in uplifting the mass of the\npeople; but, until this betterment occurs, other efforts to help them\nwill be seriously hampered or entirely futile. The very magnitude of\nthe task would prove a magnificent tonic and stimulation to the jaded\nmind of the community.\n\nAn increasing number of middle-class men and women now recognise that\nthis is, not merely the only solution of the problem of poverty, but\nthe most profitable scheme of national life for all who are willing to\nwork. So detached an observer as Mr. Carveth Read, professor of\nPhilosophy at London University, observes that \"probably the future\nlies either with Co-operation or with Socialism\" (_Natural and\nSocial Morals_, p. 211). On the Continent, especially in Italy,\nFrance, Holland, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and Russia, there is a\nhigh proportion of cultivated and professional men in the Socialist\nmovement. No one need fear its advance except the idler and the man\nwhose work does not add to the wealth of the community or facilitate\nits distribution. It is the application of sound and tried\nbusiness-principles to national life; and, when those principles have\nfirst been applied to the governmental machine, and made it an\neffective and disinterested administration, we shall move more quickly\ntoward the Collectivist ideal.\n\nSome may wonder that a student of science should come to this\nconclusion. There is a vague idea abroad that an individualist\nstruggle for existence and survival of the fittest is the supreme and\nunalterable law of life. This idea, though encouraged by men like Mr.\nKidd, is due to a merely superficial acquaintance with biology. In\npast ages nature has certainly evolved higher types mainly by a bloody\nstruggle of individuals or a very calamitous pressure of environment.\n_In the past_: there is the limit of the teaching of biology. A new\nthing--human intelligence--has now entered the life of the earth, and\nit has in countless ways superseded the laws (that is to say,\npractices) of unconscious nature. The human mind is now a part of\nnature, and therefore \"natural selection\" is a wholly different\nmatter from what it once was. Maurice Maeterlinck has suggested this\nwith his usual felicity. He imagines himself on a hill, from which he\nsees two watercourses stretching toward the sea. One meanders over the\nplains, wasting time and space, blindly finding its way over the\nuneven ground: that is the old, unintelligent method of nature. The\nother waterway stretches straight across the landscape, a canal cut by\nman in the course of a few years, with no waste of ground: it is the\nnew, intelligent method of nature. By this method we now create new\nspecies of plants in a thousandfold less time than natural selection\n(in the usual sense) could do; and we do it precisely by dispensing\nwith the individualist struggle, by intelligent arrangement and\ncontrol.\n\nEarly science set up unintelligent nature as a grand model for man. It\nis time we outgrew this phase of infancy. Intelligence must\nincreasingly count in the life of the earth. We first organise a\nnation, and presently we shall organise international life. We\norganise particular businesses, and presently we shall organise the\nwhole industrial life of the planet. There is no part of human life\nwhich calls more urgently for the application of intelligence than\nthis disordered, wasteful, pitiless, poverty-saturated industrial\nworld of ours. Let us treat human beings at least as intelligently as\nwe treat our flowers, and as humanely as we treat our horses. We do\nnot entrust those to the tragedy of struggle and survival. We need not\nfear that there will be any restriction of the development of\npersonality. Under such a Collectivist system as I have in mind,\npersonality will be developed until every man and woman is conscious\nof his or her share in the control of the destinies of this planet,\nand the sheep-like respect for ancient traditions and abuses, which\nimpedes our progress to-day, will be for ever abolished.\n\n\n CHAPTER VI.\n IDOLS OF THE HOME\n\nAMONG the claims of reconstruction which the insurgent literature of\nour time puts forward, none, perhaps, so startles and inflames the\nConservative as the demand for a reform of the family. Criticism of\nthis institution is, in fact, so severely punished or so slanderously\nmisrepresented that it is usually exercised in the more or less\nimpersonal form of the drama or novel. It happens, however, that the\ndrama or the novel is now quite the most effective means of\ninoculating millions with critical ideas, and at least half the more\nbrilliant novelists and dramatists of Europe employ their art for this\npurpose, or reflect some such sentiments in their work. Hence the\noutcry about the \"unclean novel\": which is usually far cleaner\nthan the Old Testament, but more critical. Positivism had assured us\nthat this institution would be transferred intact to a human\nfoundation, and Murillo's \"Holy Family\" hung reverently over the\nhearths of the new pagans. Now, half in fear and half in exultation,\nthe clergy cry that humanism has betrayed its moral poison and its\nsocial menace.\n\nOur favourite phrase here is the saying that the family is the\nfoundation of the State. If one patiently considered the matter, one\nwould discover that the divine right of kings was once regarded with\nequal confidence as the indispensable foundation of the State. It may\nvery well be that the divine duty of the family is no less open to\nreconsideration. It might be noticed that the change from aristocracy\nto democracy was at one time hailed with lurid prophecy even by\ndistinguished moralists and sociologists, yet this change has led to\ngreater efficiency and prosperity. We might perceive that the\nChristian dogmas were once thought vital to our welfare, and it may be\nthat the Christian ethic is in some points as disputable as the\nChristian dogmas. Few reflect on these matters, and the writer who\ncriticises the family is denounced with peculiar bitterness. Quite\ncertainly that tomb of dead civilisations yawns ominously before us if\nwe lend ear to this kind of rebel. The family is so plainly\nindispensable an institution that it must be protected from criticism:\nlest we be tempted to dispense with it.\n\nI propose, however, to make a critical study of the family. Indeed, I\nventure to say at once that our ideal of the family is so encrusted\nwith ancient superstitions that it pressingly invites the critical\nattention of our age: that the family is the foundation of the State\nonly in an historical sense, not in the sense that a State cannot be\nbased on any other procreative arrangement: and that the cloak of\nsuperstition and rhetoric that we have put about it has covered for\nages, and still covers, an appalling amount of vice, hypocrisy, and\nmisery. My point of view has been stated. The affairs of this planet\nmust be run by men for men. The supreme aim must be to lighten the\nburden of suffering which we inherit from a less intelligent and less\nhumane past. Any creed, code, or institution which forbids progress on\nthese lines must be assailed.\n\nThe first and most damnable superstition in regard to the family is\nthe claim that marriage ought to be indissoluble. In its strict form\nthis belief is held only by Roman Catholics, and by a section of the\nChurch of England which was only partially reformed in the sixteenth\ncentury and has a strange ambition to disavow even that limited\nreform. But the most insidious mischief of this old ideal is that it\nhas embedded deep in our minds the feeling that, although indissoluble\nmarriage is an intolerable yoke, we must be very chary and niggardly\nin granting relief. This feeling we ascribe to a wise concern for our\nsocial welfare, whereas it is due to the subconscious tyranny of the\nold superstition. Recently we have seen the strange spectacle of a\nnon-Christian moralist standing amongst our bishops to bar the way of\nreform: seeking to prolong, in the name of humanity, a superstition\nthat darkens the homes of a large part of humanity. The bishops may\nhave smiled.\n\nA distinguished sociological writer, Mr. L. Hobhouse, in classifying\nforms of marriage, says, with unconscious humour: \"Marriage is\nindissoluble among the Andamanese, some Papuans of New Guinea, at\nWatubela, at Lampong in Sumatra, among the Igorrotes and Italones of\nthe Philippines, the Veddahs of Ceylon, and in the Romish Church.\"\nOne trusts that the Roman (and Anglican) Catholics like the company\nthey keep; the peoples enumerated by Mr. Hobhouse are the very lowest\nand least intelligent savages known to science. The Church of Rome has\nlong boasted that its ideal of indissoluble union is the final and\nculminating point of human wisdom in regard to the family. It now\nappears that indissoluble marriage was the most primitive human\ntradition, and was discarded by the Roman and all other civilisations\nwhen they passed from childhood to manhood.\n\nSociologists have been accustomed to say that monogamy was gradually\ndeveloped out of promiscuity. This was mere speculation, and Professor\nWestermarck and other recent authorities rightly dissent. The\ninstitution is older than humanity. We find monogamic family life\namong the anthropoid apes and amongst the lowest peoples, which\nrepresent early man; and many writers on prehistoric man now contend\nthat we find him passing from family to social life, not in the\nreverse way. When the last Ice Age forced men to live in caves, and\nthe scattered families clung together and formed large social groups,\nthe family life was modified, and few of the higher tribes maintained\nthe primitive form. R\u00e9clus tells of a Khond who, on hearing of the\nmonogamous life of the wild Veddahs of Ceylon, exclaimed in disgust:\n\"They live like the apes.\"\n\nWe may assume that little hardship arises from incompatibility of\ntemperament among the Igorrotes or the Veddahs, and there is no need\nto describe the eccentric forms of marriage which arose among higher\nsavages. None of the great civilisations of the past entertained the\nidea of indissoluble marriage. The clergy, of course, know nothing of\nthe real line of evolution, and (as Bishop Diggle has done) they\nrepresent the Roman system as a comparative refinement of early\npromiscuity, on which Christianity was to make the final advance. The\nprecious testimony of Juvenal is invoked (against the warning of all\nmodern historians): and we are expected to shudder because St. Jerome\ntells us of a Roman lady who had been married a score of times. It is\nnot stated what harm was done to the lady, or to anybody else, or\nwhether she was a freak in her generation. It is enough, as Mrs.\nHumphry Ward knows, to say that divorce is frequent anywhere, and\nthousands of hands will rise to heaven: what the precise social\nconsequences are the thousand of heads seem to regard as irrelevant.\n\nI have read most of the literature of the Roman Imperial period, and\nhave found that the greater part of the statements made about it by\nclerical moralists are rubbish. Every serious student knows that it\nwas precisely the more rigid and intolerable earlier form of Roman\nmarriage (the _confarreatio_) which led to laxity in the early Empire;\nthat the Roman Lawyers of the first and second centuries, who relaxed\nmarriage, were among the most conscientious that the legal world has\never produced; and that in the time of St. Jerome--an embittered and\nintensely puritanical priest, who says worse things about his\nsacerdotal colleagues than he does about the pagans--we have the solid\ntestimony of such documents as the _Letters_ of Symmachus and the\ninstructive _Saturnalia_ of Macrobius to show that the family life of\nthe pagans was generally healthy, sober, and harmonious. There is not\na particle of proof that Roman society suffered because of the\nfacility of divorce, or generally abused this facility.\n\nBut the misrepresentation of Roman morals is light in comparison with\nthe misrepresentation of later Christian morals. Christianity took its\nideal from the Jews. Amongst this partially civilised people marriage\nhad been made easy for the male by the retention of polygamy, and it\nwas not customary to consult the feelings of the woman. In the course\nof time Greek influence entered Jud\u00e6a, and the Rabbis held learned\ndebates on marriage and divorce. Both the stricter and the laxer view\nfound expression in the New Testament and in early Christian\nliterature, but a celibate priesthood obtained supreme power in Europe\nand the stricter view was enforced. The moral consequences were\ndisastrous. While the Roman _Curia_, which could always find a flaw in\nthe marriage of a wealthy man, was enriched, Europe was degraded, and\nsexual immorality became general. It is enough to recall that a\ntradition of looseness, in strict correspondence with the law of\nindissoluble marriage, survives from the ages of faith to our own time\nin the Latin countries. Some have spoken of \"the hot southern\nblood\" and cast the blame on the climate. I would invite the\ninformed moralist to run his eye over the map of the earth, and ask\nhimself whether chastity increases, or the sex-organs lose vitality,\nin proportion as nations are removed from the Equator. It is a\nludicrous effort of Catholics to conceal the evils of indissoluble\nmarriage. Until the Reformation sexual laxity was the same all over\nEurope.\n\nIn England the old priest-made law was retained after the Reformation,\nand laxity of morals was general. Except for a very few wealthy\npeople, divorce was impossible until 1857, when a slender measure of\nreform was wrested from the clergy. This, the present law of England,\na miserable compromise with religious prejudice and a permanent source\nof vice and misery, puts English legislation on an important aspect of\n\"the foundation of the State\" below that of any other civilised\ncommunity. Instead of ridding themselves entirely of clerical\ninfluence, and directing civic life on civic grounds, our legislators\nlooked still to ancient Jud\u00e6a, and substituted the less stringent\nview of the Rabbis for the more stringent. The legendary leader of a\nrude Arab tribe had granted divorce for adultery, and the English\nnation of the nineteenth century followed his example. The result was\nthe most stupid and mischievous law of marriage outside the sphere of\nthe Holy Catholic Church.\n\nEnglish people are proud of their national concern for purity, yet\nthey tolerate, and their priests defend as something sacred, a state\nof law which is medieval in its crudeness and barbarity. When two\npeople have obeyed our counsel to marry early, and they discover that\nthey have misjudged each other, we tell them that there is no relief\nfor them unless they commit adultery: which, when it is committed, we\nbrand as the darkest sin. To the husband we give the further\ninjunction that he must be cruel to his wife before we will release\nhim. We then, although we take especial pride in the \"cleanness\"\nof our press and literature, print whole columns about their conduct\nin suspicious situations,--sometimes entitling the account, in large\ntype, to attract attention, \"A Horrible Case,\"--and we ask each\nother whether England is not in a state of decay and contracting the\ncontinental spirit. If there are any who do not choose to commit\nadultery, or do not choose to have their servants bribed to describe\ntheir conduct for the entertainment of the public, we grant them a\nlegal permit to be happy and vicious, or miserable and virtuous, for\nthe remainder of their lives: the thing we call a judicial separation.\n\nThis extraordinary situation is certainly a slight improvement on\nindissoluble marriage, but the pride of our bishops and puritans in it\nis peculiar. One may not expect them to take into account the\nsuffering which hundreds of thousands endure under the law, but the\nadultery to which it leads would seem to be a proper subject for their\nconsideration. As a rule, they entreat us to maintain religion,\nwhether it be true or no, in the name of morality: here they ask us to\nmaintain immorality in the name of religion,--in the name of a\nsupposed Christian precept,--and we obey even more readily. When a\nRoyal Commission recommends that our law be brought into line with the\nlaw of other civilised nations, they burn with indignation and inspire\na Minority Report: a remarkable mixture of contradictions, worthless\nquotations, and irrelevant rhetoric. The question of immorality they\nshirk; and to the unhappiness which large numbers of our people endure\nunder the present law they are so insensitive that they hardly mention\nit.\n\nSuch consequences are to be expected as long as we borrow our social\nlegislation from an ancient polygamous nation with a great disdain for\nwomen. It is said, however, as usual, that our social interest\ncoincides with the supposed command of Christ. We have here one of the\nmost singular confusions of the whole controversy. Marriage is held to\nbe the foundation of the State, because it is believed to be the\nsurest way to supply it with citizens. This duty of procreation is, in\nfact, the only feature which disposes priests to give their blessing\nto so distasteful a thing as sexual union. Yet when a majority of the\nCommissioners recommend that people should be free to remarry if the\ndesertion, cruelty, insanity, or imprisonment of one spouse defrauds\nthe State of its supply of little citizens, the bishops raise their\ncrosiers. Even so ascetic and anti-feminist a divine as St. Augustine\ncould not deny that a man had a right to take a concubine when his\nwife proved sterile. Our divines speak much more fervently than St.\nAugustine did of our social interest, yet they forbid us to consult\nit.\n\nIn sum, we have generally rejected the view that marriage ought to be\nindissoluble, and we pride ourselves on curbing the influence of\npriests; but our whole attitude toward divorce is shaped by the old\nsuperstition and the clergy. In the name of that superstition we\ncondemn large numbers of our fellow-citizens to live in deep and acute\nmisery. Which of our social interests would be prejudiced by granting\nrelief to the man or woman whose life is embittered by the desertion,\nincurable insanity, cruelty, or criminal conduct of his or her\npartner? The suggestion is preposterous; and, if we do not grant this\nrelief, adultery is in their case a venial offence, if not a right.\n\nSome explain that they fear \"the thin edge of the wedge.\" As if\nwedges had a way of pressing deeper by their own weight, once we have\nadmitted them! If England chooses to grant these reforms, and no\nothers, she need not be deterred by empty phrases. But I believe that\nthe alert and resolute race which is coming will go much further than\nthis. Before many generations, if not in ours, there will be divorce\nfor incompatibility of temperament in every civilised country. Men and\nwomen will be divorced, after due delay, because they wish, or when\none of them can show grave cause to separate from the other.\nIll-informed people express a concern about the children or the social\nconsequences. They do not take the trouble to inquire what happens in\nsome of the American States, or in Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and\nSwitzerland, where there is long and ample experience of divorce by\nmutual consent. The social consequences are just what any unprejudiced\nperson would expect: happier homes, and more healthily engendered and\nreared children. But the puritan does not want to inquire: he is not\nsincere. Would he agree to divorce by mutual consent where there are\nno children or where either or both parents make adequate provision\nfor them? He would not. I will, however, return later to the question\nof children.\n\nEurope will be far happier when some such humane law as the Danish is\ngenerally adopted, and, after a few years' separation, the\ndiscontented are free to remarry. But no one who is acquainted with\nthe tendency and influence of modern literature can fancy that this\nwill be the last state of the old ideal of the family. From the first\nyears when men were free to declare their opinions without fear of the\nstake, writers of great power have claimed the right of what has come\nto be called \"free love.\" Some would abolish marriage, but the\nnormal shape of the demand is that men and women shall be free to love\nand beget children whether or no they ask the blessing of Church or\nState. By the latter part of the eighteenth century, when Goethe took\na concubine on the pagan model, many of the first literary men in\nEurope pressed this demand, and it is sustained by some of the most\nbrilliant writers in every country to-day. The movement exhibits the\nslow and steady growth characteristic of reforms which eventually\ntriumph. It is no mere bubble on the surface of our effervescent life;\nit is the new intelligence of the race examining the old traditions.\n\nMoralists, lay and clerical, have a preposterous way of representing\nthis as a surging of selfish passion against the barriers which human\nexperience or superhuman wisdom has erected. There is, it is true,\nmuch in our rebellious literature itself which misrepresents the\nmovement. You get the impression that, as the eighteenth century\nquestioned the divine right of kings and the nineteenth century that\nof priests, the twentieth century is challenging the divine right of\nmoralists. But this is due to the common practice of giving a narrow\nmeaning to the word \"immorality.\" Goethe and Swinburne became\nzealous for \"morality,\" but they never altered their opinions on\n\"free love.\" Sudermann and Anatole France and P\u00e9rez Gald\u00f3s and\nd'Annunzio, G. B. Shaw and T. Hardy and E. Carpenter and H. G.\nWells, are sincere moralists: they inculcate honour, truthfulness,\nkindliness, and justice as firmly as our bishops, and more effectively\nthan most of our clergy. It is not morality that stands at the bar.\nThe real question is whether any sound moral principle implies that\nmarriage alone sanctions sex-union: whether social good or social evil\nwould result from an alteration of our standards.\n\nThis is a quite natural and legitimate question, and any\nhealthy-minded person ought to be able to discuss it without hysteria\nor vituperation. Christian moralists have made some very grave\nmistakes during the last thousand years. Humility and disdain of the\nflesh were for centuries extolled by them as the supreme virtues:\ncruelty was classified as a venial offence. Already the bulk of our\ndivines reject the virtue of asceticism, and they forbear to press on\nthe modern world the kind of humility which turns the other cheek, or\nthe other pocket, to the hooligan. They discover that social justice\nhas been singularly neglected by their predecessors, and they begin to\nsuspect that war or sweating may be worse than unbelief or\nSabbath-breaking. It is not at all unnatural to inquire whether there\nmay not also be some element of error in their sex-ethic.\n\nWe do not go far in such an inquiry before our suspicion is confirmed.\nThe evolution of the virtue of chastity may some day be traced by a\ncold scientific investigator, and in its earlier stages it will prove\nextremely interesting. It is primarily connected with an ancient\nsuperstition or \"tabu\" in regard to sex-life: the kind of\nprimitive and unreasoning feeling which once drove women to the\ntemples of Ishtar in parts of the East, and still survives, baldly and\nludicrously, in the \"purification\" process to which a recent\nmother must submit in the Roman and Anglican Churches. This old idea\nthat there was something \"unclean\" or mysterious about sex-life,\nwas more or less discarded when men passed out of the barbaric stage,\nbut it quite evidently survived in part in the virtue of purity. A man\nor woman, it was thought, had a certain mystic superiority if he or\nshe did not use the organs of sex. Hence the widespread veneration of\nVestal Virgins, Pythagorean and Serapean recluses, priestesses of\nIsis, Aztec and Christian nuns. I call attention particularly to the\nnotion that these celibates were in some sense superior to their\nfellows, because it shows clearly the connection with the older idea\nof a mystic uncleanness about sex. There is, of course, no rational\nground for this superstition, though even philosophers have\nentertained it. There is a large and elegant literature about it, from\nthe _Enneads_ of Plotinus to Bulwer Lytton's _Zanoni_ or the works\nof Miss Corelli.\n\nMost of us see quite clearly the barbaric strain lingering in this\nadmiration of virginity, but we do not perceive how far our virtue of\npurity is a compromise with this ancient superstition. I mean that,\ntogether with sound elements which I will discuss presently, the\nsentiment of purity or chastity retained a good deal of the old\nirrational view of sex. Luther boldly attacked the theoretical\nasceticism of the medieval Church, but in the end Protestantism\ncompromised with the old tradition. This again is quite plainly seen\nwhen we reflect on the way in which Church people, and many of our\nmodern mystics and feminists, breathe the word \"lust.\" It means\nmerely pleasure in sexual intercourse, but it has to be mentioned as\nrarely as possible, and with downcast eyes and an air of very distinct\ndisapproval. The impression is conveyed that it is a thing invented by\nthe devil, but reluctantly permitted by the Almighty because the race\nhad to be maintained. The blessing of the Church made it a barely\npermissible luxury. We have only to reflect that \"lust\" does not\nmean unwedded love, but sexual pleasure or desire under any\nconditions, to recognise the trail of the old tabu over the whole\nrange of these sentiments.\n\nIn the nineteenth century the evolution of morals took a strange turn.\nNeither clergy nor laity had before that time, speaking generally,\nobserved chastity in practice, but the rise of non-Christian critics\nin the eighteenth century had compelled the clergy to be more faithful\nto their own precepts. This (and the growth of such movements as\nWesleyanism) led to more concern about virtue, and when the English\nAgnostic school arose its leaders were taunted by the clergy with a\nwish to rationalise or alter morality. By a natural reaction they\ncultivated a particular zeal for virtue, and accepted the old code in\nits entirety. Those moralists who appealed to a \"categorical\nimperative\" or an \"intuition\" had no difficulty in doing this.\nIndeed, any man who to-day accepts the Stoic idea of morality, or the\n\u00e6sthetic idea (that virtue is so beautiful that we must cultivate\nit), has as much right as the Christian to profess a regard for\nchastity. There ensued a kind of rivalry of virtue between the clergy\nand the new pagans. It has ended in the curious spectacle of our\nmodern clergy, whose historical knowledge is both slender and\npeculiar, claiming that their Churches are the most faithful preachers\nof purity the world has ever known, while Agnostic moralists\nindignantly dispute their supposed monopoly.\n\nThe extreme complexity of this evolution, and the fact that few of us\nreflect critically at all on our moral sentiments, must excuse me for\nmaking this lengthy analysis. It shows that our conception of chastity\nstill contains a large amount of the old non-rational tradition, and\nthat any man or woman who declines (as so many do to-day) to bow to\nmystic and obscure commands has a right to examine it closely. In one\nof my works (_Life of G. J. Holyoake_, ii. 65) I have shown that so\nsensitive a moralist as J. S. Mill admitted this. Obviously, the\nprecept of purity or chastity has a totally different basis from all\nthe other recognised moral precepts. These others are invariably\nsocial laws, and the transgression of them is invariably a social\nhurt. Life itself furnishes the reply if a man asks why he _ought_ to\nbe just, kind, and truthful: the answer is not so obvious when he asks\nwhy he _ought_ to be chaste.\n\nThis will become very much clearer if we examine our resentment of\n\"immoral\" actions. In the majority of cases we condemn them on\nmoral principles quite apart from chastity. Europe has in this respect\nbeen lamentably misled by its professional moralists, and we can\nhardly be surprised that in practice it so largely ignored them. It is\nquite plain that a man or woman who has married on the usual\nterms--mutual fidelity--and they remain unaltered, is bound by honour\nand justice to observe the contract. Adultery is in such a case (the\nusual case) condemned by moral principles which have a very much\nclearer basis than chastity. Again, justice sternly forbids a man to\ninflict, or run the risk of inflicting, grave injury on a woman by\ncausing her to have a child in a social order which will heavily\npunish her for doing so. Here also there is a firm reason, apart from\nchastity, for moral resentment. When we eliminate these other moral\nsentiments from our condemnation of immoral acts, there is certainly\nno _social_ ground of resentment left; and, as I said, I am not\narguing against a Stoic or \u00e6sthetic or theological view. Socially, it\nwould be an enormous improvement if we kept this analysis in mind. If\nmoralists talked less about \"vice,\" which has an academic sound,\nand more about \"crime\" and honour, there would be less suffering\nin the world. The experience of two thousand years has not commended\nthe Church's practice of denouncing vice when it ought to have\nappealed to a man's sense of honour or justice. It put the accent on\nthe wrong syllable. Many a man will shrink from an act which is\nunjust, or may involve cruelty, if he is accustomed to regard it as\nsuch. He is not so effectively intimidated by terms like virtue and\nvice, which require a whole moral philosophy or theology to invalidate\nthem.\n\nBut I am not for a moment contending that this removal of the accent\nfrom one syllable to another leaves the law as it was. It is, on the\ncontrary, the very essence of my contention that the law must, in the\nreal interest of men and women, be altered and that a large amount of\nethical tyranny, which has no justification, must be abandoned. Let me\nfirst put, with entire candour, what seems to me to be the only\nrational reconstruction of sex-morality on a social basis, and then we\nmay regard the reasons for advocating it.\n\nIt is, as I said, clear that if a man or woman marries on a strict\nmonogamous contract, and holds his or her partner to that contract,\nthere is a plain obligation of justice to adhere to it. If, on the\nother hand, a man and woman choose to marry on any other\nunderstanding, or choose to grant each other (as is now frequently\ndone) a greater liberty than the contract implies, their behaviour is\nentirely their own concern, and no moralist who takes his stand on\npurely social grounds has anything to say to it. In regard to\nunmarried intercourse, it is further plain that a man commits an\nimmoral or anti-social act who entails on an unmarried woman the grave\ninjury which child-bearing does entail in our social order generally.\nIt must, however, be recognised that guilt is in this case entirely\nrelative to circumstances. Where public opinion does not make a pariah\nof such a woman, where no risk of suffering is involved, such an act\nof \"free love\" is no concern of the social moralist. Hence, if two\npeople of mature intelligence, making a just provision for possible\nchildren, choose to live together without marriage, it is entirely\ntheir own concern; and if any woman, strong and judicious enough to\ntake the responsibility of her acts, chooses love without marriage, it\nis her own concern.\n\nIf there seems to be an unfamiliar coldness and deliberation about\nthis defence of \"licence,\" it is enough to recall the familiar\ncircumstances. One cannot, as a rule, inquire dispassionately into\nthis subject without raising an hysterical storm. The clergy and other\npuritans accuse a man of the basest and most selfish motives; they\nseem, indeed, so incapable of understanding that a man may plead for\nthis moral reconstruction on motives at least as unselfish and\nelevated as their own that their obtuseness does little credit to\ntheir own moral physiognomy. They make fanatical appeals to\nundiscriminating prejudice, repeat silly phrases about \"passion\"\nand \"farmyard morals,\" and rely on intimidation. The consequence\nis, that ordinary folk openly bow to their rhetoric and secretly\nignore it. Any properly observant person can find out in a week to\nwhat extent London observes the virtue of purity. It is then left to\nrebellious poets and novelists and other artists to make fiery\nonslaughts on the tyranny: to speak of virtue as \"the ash of a\nburnt-out fire,\" to chant \"the roses and raptures of vice,\" or\nto say scornfully with Blake:\n\n \"And priests in black gowns were walking their rounds,\n And binding with briars my joys and desires.\"\n\nTherefore I have chosen to apply to the issue the cold deductive\nprocesses with which experience as a professor of moral philosophy has\nmade me familiar. As I said, the Christian is free to observe his\nsupposed divine command, the Stoic may bow to a mystic and inscrutable\nlaw, the moral \u00e6sthete may enthuse over the charm of virtue; but I\nmaintain that the sociological or utilitarian view of morals, which is\nnow generally accepted by the vast number of people who have ceased to\nbe Christian, cannot control sex-relations in any other sense than\nthis. A man must avoid injustice and hardship: a woman must use her\ndiscretion. Indeed, as the clergy and the puritans now take their\nstand commonly on social grounds, these social considerations are\neffective against them.\n\nBut the question is not merely academic. These cold and severe\ndeductions are very properly opposed to the heated phraseology and\nsentimentality of Conservatives, who profess to be concerned about our\nsocial welfare, but I am really pleading for the greater happiness of\nthe race, the lessening of hypocrisy, the curtailment of a system of\nprostitution which makes the lives of so many women end in horror.\nWith all their talk about our \"social welfare,\" the clergy and\ntheir puritan supporters are in this respect the gravest disturbers\nand restricters of our social welfare; and the insolence with which\nthey assail every attempt at reform is ludicrous in view of their own\nrecord and gravely prejudicial to the advance of human happiness. It\nis not a question of abolishing marriage, or of interfering with the\nliberty of any. At one moment the clergy represent marriage as so\nbeneficent, so solidly established in the hearts of our people, that\nonly a morbid sensualist ever assails it; and the next moment they\nsuggest, in effect, that if we relax our coercion, people will abandon\nmarriage in such numbers that the social order will be overwhelmed.\nLet us have sincerity and liberty.\n\nBut neither is it a question of spreading a gospel of \"free love,\"\nin the perverse sense in which the clergy conceive such a gospel. The\nconsiderations I have given above should make this plain enough. It is\na question of securing freedom and love for the hundreds of thousands\nof mature women who cannot marry, or who do not choose to enter upon\nthe very precarious experiment of surrendering their privacy and\nindependence: a question of breaking the tyranny of an old\nsuperstition which, by means of public opinion, forbids so many women\nto have the child they desire to have, or the share of happiness from\nwhich they are excluded: a question of putting an end to a vast amount\nof needless suffering and privation and hypocrisy. The State would\ngain rather than lose by this freedom: it is the Church only that\nwould suffer. Thousands of women already hold these views, as the open\ncirculation of the _Freewoman_ (a few years ago) and of our bolder\nnovelists shows. The feeling gains ground yearly, and the time is\napproaching when that seal of ignominy which our priest-made law puts\non the \"illegitimate\" child will be removed, and men and women\nwill cease to speak of \"lust.\" Sex-pleasure has no more taint than\nany other, and the notion that it is justified only as an\naccompaniment to the begetting of children, or to lessen the risk of\nadultery, is childishly irrational and generally insincere. Laws there\nmust be: but the laws must be made for men, not men for the laws. It\nis time that Europe shook off the conceptions of conduct which were\nimposed on it by impotent monks like Gregory VII., and framed its own\nrules in accordance with the new and healthier attitude toward life.\nAsceticism is a commercial speculation--the sacrifice of earth for a\ndouble share of heaven--which we have no longer reason to appreciate.\n\nThe progress of this view will be assisted by two contemporary reforms\nof received opinion. One regards the economic dependence of woman on\nman, which I will discuss later. I need only recall here that some of\nthe worst evils of our marriage-system--the scheming and bartering and\nlinking for life--are due to this dependence. The other reform is the\nwidespread and increasing rejection of the old idea that a woman must\nbear as many children as nature will permit her to have.\n\nThere is amongst us a disgusting amount of hypocrisy in regard to this\nquestion. The majority of educated people of all classes, even many of\nthe clergy, now practise artificial limitation of the family, yet we\nproceed on the fiction that this is a disreputable practice. We turn\ninto pornographic d\u00e9p\u00f4ts the shops which sell contraceptives, and we\nallow an antiquated law to be drastically enforced against men who\nwould be decent purveyors of the things we use in secret. We have\ntalked, and read journalistic articles, about \"the dwindling\npopulation of France\" for twenty years, though it is only within the\nlast year or so that it has even slightly decreased; and the\nbirth-rate alone shows that London and Berlin and every other great\ncity are rapidly approaching the condition of Paris. We listen without\nprotest to the lamentations of half-informed faddists on the\nlimitation of the birth-rate in ancient Rome (where the practice was\nconfined to a few, and proved an excellent means of saving the State\nby ridding it of a worn-out nobility) or the medieval republics of\nItaly. And while we perpetrate these and a hundred other follies, we\nknow that the majority of us who are educated and unprejudiced find\nthe practice humane and commendable. We would, it seems, rather leave\nfrail girls to the mercy of quacks and dangerous operators than tell\nthem openly what better-educated ladies do to avoid conception.\n\nYet we have not here even the excuse of an antique religious command.\nThe Catholic Church, it is true, severely condemns the use of\ncontraceptives, but one finds that its prohibition is based merely on\nthe reasoning of medieval celibates. With those who argue that the\npractice is \"against nature\" one hardly needs to discuss. Half the\ndistinctive things of civilisation are \"against nature,\" nor is\nthere any reason why we should not depart from the ways of that\nancient and unintelligent dame. Hardly less foolish is the alarm about\nour dwindling birth-rate. With every industry and profession already\nmuch overcrowded, we do not act very intelligently in censuring the\nmodern restriction of production. But these are, to a great extent,\neither wholly insincere expressions or confused repetitions of ancient\nprejudices. In France, where a society arose for the checking of the\npractice, it was found that the members had an average of one child\nand a half in each family. A similar census among the writers and\nassociations which attack Malthusianism in England might yield an\ninstructive result.\n\nOne can understand the hostility to Malthusianism--or, rather,\nNeo-Malthusianism, since Malthus's idea of restricting population by\navoiding intercourse is unnecessarily heroic--in a country like\nAustralia, which urgently requires population; though even in\nAustralia the opposition is futile. One can understand such hostility\nin a land which has universal conscription, and neighbours with a\nsuperior army; though I have elsewhere pointed out the sensible and\nnatural way to settle this difficulty. But it is quite irrational in\nsuch a city as London. Five-sixths of us, it has been demonstrated, do\nnot attend church or take our code of life meekly from the clergy, as\nour fathers did; our labour-market is, in every division, enormously\novercrowded; and our army is not affected by the dwindling birth-rate.\nWhy, in these circumstances, should the women of England be asked to\nundergo the pain and sickness and weariness of a yearly birth, and\nwear out their lives in the rearing of a large family? Men have, as a\nrule, too little appreciation of the terrible burden they lay on their\nwives, but their own interest at least ought to weigh with them. Why\nbe constrained to find the resources for rearing and educating a large\nfamily when a smaller family will give better chances to the children\nand conduce to the happiness of the home?\n\nTo these questions the only answer is an irrational outpouring of\nantique rhetoric. It is mere \"lust\" to have commerce without\nchildren: it is \"selfish\" to wish to live in greater comfort by\nrestricting the family: it is \"unnatural.\" The man who would\nlessen the suffering of his companion in life, and obtain greater\nadvantages and more loving care for his children by restricting their\nnumber, may smile at the futility of this kind of rhetoric. But it is\nsurely time, in the second decade of the twentieth century, to meet it\nwith a frank and curt declaration that we have, and will use, a right\nto any pleasure which this life affords, provided it hurt no one. The\nlast trace of asceticism should be trodden underfoot. The medieval\nclergy were a body of a few fanatics leading an army of hypocrites.\nTheir ideas have no place in our life. Love and joy and comradeship\nare in themselves as much ours as the scent of the rose or the flavour\nof wine. It is time that we echoed defiantly the sneering words of the\napostle, and said: Yes, _let_ us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.\nWe are not likely to forget that life has other pleasures, of culture\nand art, besides those of the palate or of love. The supreme\ncommandment is, as old Egypt said: \"Thou shalt make no man weep.\"\nThe supreme virtue is to quicken the hearts of men with joy and fill\ntheir minds with truth. And the time will come when the clergy,\nreading aright for the first time the life of the ages of faith, will\nsay: \"We never insisted on our theoretical asceticism until those\ndour sceptics of the nineteenth century compelled us: the Middle Ages\nwere the ages of liberty.\"\n\nThe clergy are, in fact, in a dilemma. The cry of the hour is\n\"social consequences.\" There is a vast amount of doleful recalling\nof dead civilisations and prediction of coming woe; though England was\nnever before so prosperous, solid, and free from crime. But dogmas\nhave worn so thin that we must be pressed to maintain them, even if\nthey are false, on social grounds. The answer is quite simple. If any\nsocial quality or rule of conduct is necessary for our welfare and\nhappiness in this world, we need no dogmatic foundation for it. Men\nwill see that virtue is its own reward. And if any rule of conduct in\nthe Christian code is _not_ based upon the actual exigencies of life,\nthere will be no social consequences if we disregard it. The\nsuperstitions I have assailed belong to this latter category.\n\nBut a campaign against the artificial restriction of the birth-rate\nhas recently been inaugurated on what are thought to be serious social\ngrounds, and this leads me to a third and last reform which the family\nwill undergo. I refer to the Eugenic movement. Let me first explain\nwhy this hostility of Eugenists to the restriction of the birth-rate\nseems a needless and illogical complication of their aims.\n\nThis hostility is usually expressed in the form of a fear that the\nrestriction of births among the \"better class\" and unrestricted\nincrease of the \"lower class\" must lead to deterioration. One\nwould think that the proper remedy of this would be to recommend\nprudential restriction to the mass of the workers, as the Malthusian\nLeague endeavours to do. It is a strange social idealism which would\nurge over-production all round, with its train of domestic and\nindustrial evils, instead of urging restriction all round. It would\nalso be interesting to learn the average number of children to a\nfamily among these zealous Eugenists, and whether they do not find\nmiddle-class professions as overcrowded as the manual industries are.\nAt all events, since it is now impossible to induce educated mothers\nto return to the virtuous and exacting industry of their Victorian\npredecessors, the best thing would be to educate the masses in a\ncommon-sense view of maternity and of their own interest.\n\nIt will suffice here, however, to deal with the saner side of the\nEugenic movement. It proposes to eliminate bad human stock and promote\nthe mating of good stocks. These are those who find it a degradation\nto introduce \"the methods of the breeder\" into human affairs, but\nthe objection is merely silly. The methods of the modern breeder are\nan expression of intelligence, improving on nature; these\nold-fashioned folk would have us disregard the persuasion of\nintelligence and retain the crude methods of unintelligent nature. The\nserious question is: Is the Eugenic proposal sound and practicable?\n\nAs far as positive Eugenics, or the selection of good human stocks for\nbreeding, is concerned, the recent evolution of the movement seems to\nshow that no firm and practicable proposal can yet be formulated. The\ntruth is that the movement is greatly enfeebled by a general reliance\non disputed theories of heredity. Some Eugenists rely on Weismann's\ntheory: some on the Mendelist theory. They do not realise that\nscientific men are by no means agreed upon these theories, and it is a\nserious mistake to build on either. In England most of our biologists\nare Weismannists (in a broad sense), but there is more hostility to\nthe theory in Germany and the United States, and both theories have\nlately had to confront grave difficulties. Any Eugenic proposal which\nis based on a theory of heredity must be regarded with reserve. The\ndogmatic statements of Professor Karl Pearson, for instance, in regard\nto the impossibility of altering by education the innate qualities of\na child are entirely unwarranted. Heredity is still a mystery: and the\nrelative importance of heredity and environment (or nature and\nnurture) is not yet determined.\n\nDetaching the element of theory, we have a plain proposal to eradicate\ntainted stocks from the human garden and promote the growth of the\nsounder. As I have said, the positive proposal to breed has not yet\nbeen put before us in a practicable or discussable form. This is\nlargely because Eugenists fear to alarm the public by pointing out how\nit affects the position of marriage. There are, however, many other\ndifficulties. The extraordinary diversity among children of the same\nparents warns us that we cannot count on the result of mating human\nbeings, with their infinitely more complex nervous systems, as we can\ncount on the issue of mating sheep or dogs. The mediocrity of the\nliving children of our ablest men of the last generation, even when\nthe mother was an excellent mate, is another circumstance to be\nconsidered. We do not yet know the points to breed for, and there is\nno constancy of result. Eugenists sometimes refer to the physical or\nmental superiority of one class of children over another, but in this\nthey do not attempt to distinguish between the effect of environment\nand the natural endowment. Positive Eugenics is not yet beyond the\nstage of research. Such research, if conducted without academic\nprejudice (which is too apparent in many Eugenic papers), is of very\ngreat service; and, if ever a firm proposal lies before us, we may\ntrust that rhetorical phrases and clerical prejudices will not be\nallowed to bar the way.\n\nIn the case of negative Eugenics we are nearer agreement. Here again,\nhowever, research is not always candid. Inquiries have been made into\nthe lineage of American criminals, and the large percentage of\ncriminals in one family is held to indicate a tainted stock: it is not\nsufficiently noticed that they all lived in the same crime-breeding\nenvironment. Other Eugenists try to intimidate us with the cry that\nlunacy and crime are increasing rapidly: whereas (as I showed in the\n_Hibbert Journal_, April 1912) there is no proved increase of lunacy\nand no increase of crime, in proportion to the growth of population.\nThese methods bring discredit on the Eugenic proposals. It is,\nhowever, now agreed that certain diseases, including certain forms of\nmental disease, are transmissible, and common-sense suggests that we\nshould prevent their transmission. It is well to bear in mind,\nhowever, that these things affect only a fraction of the community. As\nis the case with every new social proposal, Eugenics is being pressed\nas a panacea; and it appeals to many as a fascinating method of\nhealing our social maladies without touching the present distribution\nof wealth. It is one subsidiary remedy among the hundred which modern\ncivilisation needs to apply. By all means let us discover what\n\"tainted stocks,\" if any, there are amongst us; and let us have\nthe elementary courage and intelligence to extinguish them, by the\nisolation, painless destruction, or sterilisation of their\nrepresentatives.\n\nThe future of the family seems not obscure. Malthusian and Eugenic\nproposals will alter much of the crudeness and stupidity of the old\nfamily ideal, and ease of divorce will remove the blight it has put on\nmany a home. Hundreds of thousands bless marriage with gratitude and\nsincerity: tens of thousands curse it with equal sincerity. Let there\nbe liberty and life for all. For a modern legislature to ignore a vast\namount of vice and misery, and be guided by the ancient formula of a\ncelibate priesthood, is one of the most lamentable features of our\ncivilisation. And the unbiased social student may look without concern\non the growth of extra-matrimonial love. There is no interest of the\nState which forbids it, nor any sound principle of morals. The woman\nof the future will be her own mistress, responsible neither to priest\nnor moralist in this respect. If she chooses, she will marry; but she\nwill not sacrifice half the joy of life because she cannot, or does\nnot choose to, venture upon the experiment of domestic intimacy.\n\n\n CHAPTER VII.\n THE FUTURE OF WOMAN\n\nTHE old tradition of the family is intimately connected with the old\nideal of womanhood, and this in turn is summoned to the bar of modern\ncriticism. A substantial change in the position of woman seems so\nrevolutionary a disturbance, since it directly affects half the race\nand must very seriously affect the home and the State, that our\nConservatives employ against the proposal the whole arsenal of\ncontroversial rhetoric. We hear of the wisdom of the race--as if the\nrace did not grow wiser as it grows older--and the thin end of the\nwedge. We are reminded that the ancient civilisations always came to\nan end when their women rebelled against their natural position. We\nhave private appeals to our sensuous feelings and our instincts of\nproprietorship, and open appeals to the ascetic doctrine of the\nPauline Epistles. We have history put before us, as usual, in chosen\nfragments, and on the strength of these detached bits of learning we\nhear impressive sermons on the \"laws\" of history and of nature.\n\nThe appeal to history, which men like Dr. Emil Reich have so gravely\nabused, is in this case singularly unfortunate. In most cases the\ncandid student of history finds some ancient abuse or irrational\ntradition making its way from one civilisation to another, and finds\nit natural that our more critical and independent generation should at\nlength seek to dethrone it. But in the case of woman the Conservative\nhas not even \"the wisdom of the race\" to appeal to. Her position\nin the past has varied greatly, but it is very far from true that she\nhad always occupied that state of subjection in which our Victorian\nreformers found her. I have elsewhere (_Woman in Political Evolution_)\nsurveyed the full story of woman's development, and will here be\ncontent with a summary view which makes the Feminist movement of our\ntime intelligible.\n\nDuring the greater part of the history of civilisation, in the\nEgyptian and Mesopotamian empires, woman had a considerable measure of\nfreedom and respect. When the Greeks and Romans entered the stage,\nthey brought with them a different tradition in regard to woman, but\nas soon as they reached the height of their cultural development,\ntheir women (and many of their men) rebelled against this tradition.\nThe civilisation of Greece was extinguished so speedily that the women\nof Athens, aided by so eminent a thinker as Plato, had not time to win\ntheir emancipation; but the Roman women did succeed in lifting\nthemselves from their position of subjection. In the meantime,\nhowever, the political and religious development of Europe led to the\nreappearance of the barbaric tradition in a new form. The Christian\nleaders had in their sacred documents the social code of a rude\nSemitic tribe, the Jews, which was sternly emphasised by St. Paul, and\nthey brooded darkly over the position of woman. Tertullian fiercely\nreminded Christians that, but for woman, the race would never have\nbeen damned. Ambrose ingeniously reflected that Eve was made out of a\nmere rib, not out of the brain, of Adam. Augustine regarded woman as\nan unpleasant institution created by Providence for the relief of\nweak-willed males and for the maintenance of the race. Jerome frowned\nheavily on the Roman woman's claim of emancipation. This quaint\nmixture of Jewish contempt and ascetic dread was imposed on Europe by\nthe triumphant priesthood, educated mainly in the opinions of \"the\nFathers,\" and woman sank again to a position of inferiority and\nsubjection.\n\nWomen writers of many countries have written this story of the\ndegradation of their sex in Christian Europe, and one can only admire\nthe splendid audacity with which Bishop Welldon assures women that\nJesus Christ (who never uttered a protest against the Jewish\nconception or a warning against the coming abuse of it) was \"the\nfirst to respect them,\" or the Bishop of London describes\nChristianity as \"woman's best friend,\" or Bishop Diggle\nrepresents the Christian as an advance on the Roman attitude. Our\nclergy are distinguished for the facility with which they make\nhistorical statements without giving us any serious evidence of a\ncommand of history; they have the advantage of being able to assure\ntheir followers that it is a \"sin\" to read more accurate and less\northodox experts.\n\nThe historical truth is that the nineteenth century found woman in a\nposition far lower than that she had occupied at Rome seventeen\ncenturies before--far lower, indeed, than she had occupied during\n(except for two brief periods) the many thousands of years of the\nhistory of civilisation. It was quite inevitable that a movement for\nher emancipation and uplifting should find a place among the great\nreforms initiated in the last century. To conceive this movement as a\nsemi-hysterical rebellion against the settled usage of the race is\nmerely to betray a gross ignorance of history. Recent experience has\ntaught us that there is a great deal in the settled usage of the race\nto rebel against; but it is false that in this case we are doing so.\nThe undisputed historical truth is that woman had been comparatively\nfree and respected during the greater part of the civilised period:\nthat, when the early civilisations of Greece and Rome had placed her\nin subjection for a few centuries, she, at the beginning of the\nChristian era, rebelled and won her emancipation: and that the later\nperiod of subjection was merely due to the incorporation in the\nChristian religion of the primitive and crude ideal of a polygamous\nArab tribe. Against this intolerable superstition modern civilisation\nhas rebelled, and we are in the midst of a far deeper discussion of\nwoman's nature and position than ever occurred before.\n\nThe discussion is passing through the three phases which are customary\nin these controversies. At first the clergy and the Conservative\nquoted the Bible and the Fathers. Then, when women began to show that\nthey were disposed to examine a little more closely the authority of\ndocuments which taught so obvious an injustice, it was pleaded that in\nthis case the religious view coincided with \"sound\" science and\nsociology. In that phase we are to-day, discussing claims that\n\"nature\" and our social interest are on the side of the old ideal.\nIn a few more decades, when the battle is won, the Bishop of London of\nthe time will be demonstrating that the reform was anticipated by the\nFathers sixteen hundred years ago and was contained, in germ, in the\nNew Testament.\n\nAt present the controversy about woman's position turns largely on\nthe question of her \"nature,\" and the literature of the subject is\nprodigious. Woman has different organs and functions than those of\nman, and it is natural to suppose that they will give her a different\ncharacter. Here is the opportunity of the male: he has a solid\nscientific fact to build upon.\n\nHe sagely examines the intellectual life of woman and pronounces it\ninferior to that of man: he measures her brain and finds it smaller\nthan that of man, and thus discovers the scientific basis of her\ninferiority; and he never reflects that, since he, on the whole,\nforbade her to develop her brain and intelligence during the fifteen\ncenturies of Christian domination, it may be that her brain is not\nworking with all the energy of which it is capable. He lays down for\nthis dependent creature a certain code of deportment and behaviour,\nand, when it has enfeebled her, he discourses on her inferior muscular\ndevelopment: if any girls or women defiantly exercise their muscles\nand become strong, he calls them \"unwomanly\" and happily\nexceptional. He observes that woman is more emotional than man; and,\nof course, he does not ask physiologists whether this may be merely,\nor mainly, the effect (as it is) of the muscular and intellectual\nrestrictions he has placed on her. He bids her develop pretty curves\non her body for his entertainment, and never thinks about the\nphysiological and psychological effect of the dead mass of fat and the\nflabby muscles. He kindly undertakes (for a consideration) the care of\nthis weaker companion, and, when she begins to prove that she can fend\nfor herself, he severely censures her for intruding on his\nlabour-market. He learns from novelists that she has a peculiar power\nof \"intuition\" (in fiction), and a greater fineness of perception\nthan man (which exact experiment in America has shown to be untrue),\nand is altogether a deep and unfathomable being. And he then, in\nvirtue of his superior understanding of her \"mysterious\" nature,\nproceeds to dictate to her about her sphere and her capacities.\n\nThe absurdities and contradictions of male writers on women, supported\nby some women writers, during the last two hundred years, would fill a\nvolume. They were more or less intelligible, and certainly\nentertaining, in the earlier part of the modern period, but at a time\nwhen we have scientific and historical information to guide us they\nare neither intelligent nor amusing. We now know that there is no such\nthing as an unchangeable nature of a living organism. Structure and\nfunction vary with use and environment, whatever theory of heredity\none follows. Forbid the brain and muscles to function for some\ncenturies, and they will become feebler: restore their activity and\nthey will return to strength. Shut a woman out of politics or business\nor war, and she will lose her capacity for it: reintroduce her to it,\nand her faculties are sharpened. When the kings of Dahomi formed a\nregiment of women in their army, the women were found to be more\ndeadly fighters than the men, and they drank as heavily.\n\nAs far as the political phase of the modern Feminist struggle is\nconcerned, the application of these principles is clear enough. When\nstatesmen can find no better argument against the enfranchisement of\nwomen than the fact that (like the politicians themselves) they do no\nmilitary service, and when scientific men plead only their periodical\nperturbations and their \"change of life,\" it is time to cease\narguing. Even in countries which have a system of conscription it has\nnever been proposed that those who are exempt from service should not\nhave a vote. In a country like England the objection is supremely\nfoolish: it reminds one of Plato's ironical argument, in this\nconnection, that men who are bald should not be allowed to make shoes.\nAs to the comparative disturbance of judgment which a certain\nproportion of women suffer at certain periods, it is preposterous to\nsuppose that this does not unfit them for more important work, but\n_does_ unfit them for casting a vote once in seven years. Is it\nsuggested that the Conservative matron will, if an election fall in\nher period of nervous instability, march in a frenzy to the poll and\nvote for Keir Hardie? Even the more or less intoxicated male voter\ndoes not overrule a settled conviction so easily. But it is waste of\ntime to discuss such matters. A simple investigation of years of\nexperience in America and Australasia is more valuable than the\npedantic declarations of one or two scientific men. Even Conservative\nAustralians smiled when I asked them if the consequences of female\nenfranchisement, as they are darkly foreboded by serious people in\nEngland, had been observed in their Commonwealth.\n\nThe anti-suffrage campaign has been the death-blow of the prejudice\nagainst the enfranchisement of women. It has shown the complete\nfutility of the Conservative position. Women would probably have the\nvote in England to-day if a section of those who demand it had not\ntaken a false path. The end, however sacred, does not justify criminal\nmeans; nor can any serious statesman yield to violence and\nintimidation. Yet there is nothing in this temporary aberration to\nstrengthen the anti-Feminist position. It was an error of judgment and\na misreading of history. I am well acquainted with many of the ladies\nwho did these regrettable things, and I know that the suggestion of\n\"hysteria\" is an insult. It is, however, useless to discuss this\nquestion further. Women will be enfranchised in England within a few\nyears, and in all civilised nations within a quarter of a century.\n\nThen will begin the campaign for the right to sit in Parliament, even\nin the Ministry. From sheer force of prejudice the great majority of\nthe enfranchised women will resist this further claim, and the long\nstory of education and agitation will be repeated. This is the outcome\nof our habit of persistently compromising with false traditions\ninstead of frankly discarding them. The immortal jokes about women\nwill be retailed in the House of Commons by our legislators; the same\ndark warnings will come from scientific Cassandras who have felt\nsocial influence; the same tragic whispers about \"what every woman\nknows\" will be heard in drawing-rooms. Then, about the year 1930, we\nwill discover that woman is really capable of undertaking the not very\nexacting duties of the average Member of Parliament,--if we have not\nin the meantime abolished these aimless long debates on subjects which\nall approach with a fixed conviction,--and that it may not be\nimpossible to find a woman with the capacity of Mr. Reginald M'Kenna\nor Lord Gladstone or Mr. Walter Long. Our Mrs. Humphry Wards will be\nthe first to compete for the office.\n\nI turn to the more serious question of the economic enfranchisement of\nwomen. On this side of the Feminist movement our views are hardly less\nhazy than in regard to politics. The middle-class, being the brain as\nwell as the backbone of England, is chiefly responsible for the maxim\nthat woman's place is the home; but the middle-class is also the\ngreat employer of labour, and it has found that female labour is\ncheaper than male, and has therefore concluded that woman's proper\nplace is the office or the workshop. More than a fourth of the girls\nand women of England work outside the home. This material incentive to\nright views is, however, limited in its action. When the middle-class\nwoman in turn seeks economic independence, she is received with\ncoldness, if not derision. Women may be clerks, teachers, actresses,\ntelegraphists, hosiery-makers, etc., but they ought not to aspire to\nbe doctors, lawyers, or stockbrokers. If they ask the reason, they\nhear an inconsistent jumble of statements. In the first place, of\ncourse, they are not clever enough; in the second place, however, they\nare likely to be so far successful that they would lessen the\navailable employment of men.\n\nCertainly in such a haphazard industrial world as ours the accession\nof a fresh army of workers will cause, and is causing, confusion. On\nthe _laissez-faire_ principle this overcrowding of the market is good;\nit gives a greater play to selection and promotes efficiency. But we\nhave, as I said, forced _laissez-faire_ to compromise with decency. We\nprefer a little overcrowding, but not too much. The opening of the\ndoors of all the professions to woman means a worse overcrowding than\never in the medical and legal worlds, and we naturally hesitate.\n\nNaturally, but not justly or logically. Between logic and justice the\nmodern man pleads that he is distracted, and he asks time for\nreconstruction; asks, in other words, that we should leave the trouble\nto another generation. This shrinking from trouble is of no avail. We\nhave sanctioned the principle of female industry outside the\nhome--millions of women are so employed in England to-day--and we have\nabsolutely no ground to limit it except the natural disability of\nwoman or the social need for her to undertake other functions. Of her\nnatural disability little need be said here. We have had, in most\ncountries, decades of experience of the employment of women in many\nindustries--teaching, nursing, journalism, factory-work, art, theatre,\npost-office, type-writing, shop-work, and so on. What proportion of\ncomplaint to the number of workers is there that their periodical\nfunctions make them unfit for employment? We do not need learned\nexperts on gynecology to tell us of the acute and exceptional cases\nwhich have come under their observation. The scientific and practical\nprocedure is to make a general inquiry into the net result of our\nemployment of millions of girls and women. Most of us would await such\na report with confidence. As long as the wages of women are lower than\nthose of men, we hear very little complaint; nor do we find the work\nof our schools or the play of our theatres very much interrupted by\npeculiarly feminine weaknesses. Of late years women have shown that\nthey are equally qualified to be dentists, doctors, chartered\naccountants, etc. Common-sense would persuade us, if we would find the\nreal limits of woman's capacity, to open to her all the doors of the\nworld of work and learn it by experience.\n\nOne must give more serious attention to the claim that this economic\nenfranchisement of women will tend to lessen maternity, and will\ntherefore endanger our social interests. This question of the\nbirth-rate is, in fact, very important from many points of view, and\nit is extremely advisable to have a clear and reasoned grasp of it.\nMany people are at once alarmed if it is shown that a practice will\ntend to lessen the birth-rate. They rarely examine with critical\nattention the reasons which would be alleged by those who maintain\nthat a lowering of the birth-rate _is_ a social menace.\n\nBut one needs no lengthy reflection to discover that at the root of\nall this clamour for maintaining or increasing the birth-rate we have\nonly military requirements. Some, indeed, urge that a nation needs as\nmany soldiers as possible for her industrial army as well as for her\nmilitary forces; but, seeing that each nation already has more than\nshe can employ, we are not impressed by this phrase. It is not volume\nof production, or gross largeness of revenue, which makes a nation\ngreat. It is the proportion of her revenue to her population, and in\nthat respect some of the smallest States are the most happily\nsituated. The need of a large army alone justifies complaints about a\nfalling birth-rate, and it is monstrous that we should lay this strain\non parents merely in order to produce \"fodder for cannon.\" The\nactual need of each country, as long as the military system lasts,\nmust, of course, be met, but--apart from the hope that we will soon\ncast off the greater part of this military burden--two circumstances\nshow that we have not here a sound and permanent social need. The\nbirth-rate is falling in all civilised countries, and will eventually\nreach a common low level; and the war has shown us that a nation with\na reduced population may, like any nation with a small population,\nfind compensation for its weakness in alliances.\n\nThe truth is that the premature advance of France in restricting its\nbirth-rate has led to a general fallacy. France exposed itself to a\nparticular danger in face of Germany, and this special weakness of\nFrance was converted into the general statement that any nation which\nreduces its birth-rate is in danger. Not only is the general statement\nuntrue, but the particular case of France is very carelessly\nconceived. After 1871 the German Empire had such an advantage in\npopulation over France, and (until 1895) so much less need of\nmaintaining a fleet, that even a full birth-rate would not have\nequipped France confidently for a combat. In any case, we come back\nalways to military needs, and we may trust that these will not long\nimpose their terrible strain on civilisation. There is, apart from\nthem, no reason why the birth-rate should not sink in every country to\nthe level of the death-rate, and in many countries even lower.\n\nOn the other hand, the superficial folk who cry for heavy maternity\nand full cradles overlook a very important social fact. I am thinking\nchiefly of the men and women who denounce in principle the practice of\nrestricting births. Not only do they ignore the overcrowding of our\ntrades and professions,--and they are usually amongst the most\nreluctant to organise them,--but they fail to notice that the\nincreasing application of science and humane sentiment to our modes of\nliving threatens the earth, as a whole, with enormous over-population,\nunless the birth-rate be checked. The population of England has\nincreased nearly fourfold in the past hundred years, whereas it had\nlittle more than doubled in the previous two hundred years. The\nfactors which are responsible for this vast modern increase are\nbecoming more active every decade, and are spreading over the world.\nHow will the population of Europe and Asia stand when they are fully\napplied in Russia, China, and India? Within twenty years the United\nStates, according to its agricultural experts, will have as large a\npopulation as it can support, and we have already seen Germany very\nlargely thrust into war because of its superabundant population. The\nfuture is full of peril and misery if we continue to allow this\nmilitary demand for men to masquerade as a sound and permanent human\nneed. The birth-rate _must_ be checked.\n\nWe must therefore refuse to allow the path of reform to be obstructed\nby either the priest or the drill-sergeant. If ever a time comes when\nsome real interest of the race is endangered by too low a birth-rate,\nwe may trust the race to see to it. Conservatives often imagine that\nthose who would reform life on common-sense lines are devoid of\nsentiment. They confuse sentiment and sentimentality, which is\nsentiment out of accord with reason. The man of the future will be, in\nmy judgment, not less, but more emotional than the man of to-day; but\nhe will not allow ancient prejudices and mere phrases to have the\nunchecked support of his feelings. It will not be enough to tell him\nthat divorce is increasing, or the birth-rate falling, or respect for\nthe clergy deteriorating. He will ask the precise value in social\nterms of your bogy. At present we have, on broad social grounds, much\nto gain and nothing to lose by a fall of the birth-rate. Indeed, the\nprospect of a fall is, as far as this economic development alone is\nconcerned, much exaggerated. Millions of employed women have, and will\ncontinue to have, children. Under our present system of industry this\nhas undoubtedly certain risks and burdens; under the organised system\nof employment for which I plead it will be possible to adjust\nemployment to maternal functions.\n\nAnd this brings me to the cardinal issue of the whole controversy: the\neconomic position of the married woman or the mother. Let us face this\ngraver position quite candidly. The industrial disorganisation will\nright itself in the course of time. The middle-class father of our\ntime whose daughter does a certain amount of work, not in order to\nrelieve his pocket, but in order to buy additional luxuries for\nherself, has assuredly a grievance. She takes part of a man's work\nand pay, yet leaves on him the old burden of maintenance. She makes\nmatters worse by accepting a low wage, because she is not\nself-maintaining. I am assuming that women will become independent\neconomic units, and that the rate of payment will be--equal wage for\nequal service.\n\nBut the position of the married woman, or of the independent woman who\nundertakes maternal functions, forms a special and difficult problem,\nwhich is pressing upon us more heavily every decade. There is\nspreading rapidly through the civilised world a feeling of rebellion\nagainst the economic dependence of wife or husband. No Conservative\nargumentation, no censure of new ideas, no religious preaching of\nself-sacrifice for a doubtful reward in heaven, will relieve us of\nthis difficulty. Educated women--statistics of college-taught women\nare available--are increasingly rebelling against the subjection or\ninferiority which this economic dependence seems to entail. It is the\nchief motive of the general demand for economic independence (or an\nindependent place in the industrial world) and has much to do with the\nrevolt against marriage itself. Whether or no we adopt new ideals of\nsocial life, this revolt will spread.\n\nOne very quickly sees that it is not so much marriage as the\ntraditional practice of husbands which is chiefly responsible for the\nrevolt. The practice varies considerably, but, apart from a small\nclass in which the wife brings with her or earns an independent\nincome, it is still generally true to say that the wife receives what\nthe husband chooses to give. Now it is plain that this difficulty may\nbe met in a very large proportion of cases by an equitable voluntary\nagreement. Various domestic experiments of the kind are being tried,\nand a comparison of experiences would be useful. Many people are\nagreed in the just view that, since the wife works at home while the\nhusband works abroad, all income is joint income. A common fund,\naccessible to both, is assigned for household and saving, and an equal\nand fixed personal share is taken by each from the income or wage.\nSuch an arrangement is quite easily practised by middle-class people,\nand it seems to me to remove every legitimate suspicion of ignominy\nfrom the wife's position.\n\nWhen unmarried women have secured economic independence they will be\nable to demand some such arrangement before marrying. The kind of\n\"modesty\" which would prevent a woman from having an understanding\nbefore marriage in regard to income and children is a very costly and\nfoolish luxury. Let them insist that the ritual words, \"With all my\nworldly goods I thee endow,\" must mean something more than that they\nshall have chocolates and pretty dresses _if_ they humour the moods of\na husband. Our law, which secures for a wife full maintenance when she\nhas ceased to do any work for it (after a separation), but has no\ninterest in her when she is working dutifully for twelve or fourteen\nhours a day, is infinitely more dangerous to marriage than are the\npuritan assaults of Mr. G. B. Shaw. In any case, a voluntary agreement\nthat a wife has access to the bank and cash-box, and a right to take\nfor personal use the same sum as her husband, removes all need of\nasking money from a husband (which is justly odious to many women),\nand makes a wife economically independent in any important sense of\nthe word.\n\nBut it would be futile to hope either that the majority of men will\nthus surrender their privileged position, or that all women will\nrecognise even such an arrangement as economic independence. A grave\nconflict undoubtedly lies before us, and there will be an increasing\ndemand for the State-endowment of wifehood, or at least of motherhood.\nThe suffrage movement has naturally inflamed the difficulty by\neducating women in a sense of grievance. Indeed, it seems to many of\nus that Feminist writers have at times gone far beyond legitimate\ngrievances and set up fictitious and mischievous standards. This is a\nvery common development of propagandist movements which meet with a\nprolonged resistance. The first generation of agitators says the\nobvious and just things in regard to the reform: the next generation\nmust revive the jaded sentiment with stimulating novelties and\nexaggerations. It seems to me one of these morbid exaggerations to\nspeak of marriage as \"legalised prostitution\"; to imagine that one\nis \"selling one's body\" to a man, or receiving payment for\nministering to his \"lust.\" One Feminist writer of some influence,\nand some pretension to knowledge of science, has actually compared the\nhuman male very unfavourably with all other male animals in the world,\non the ground that the latter are content with a restricted period of\n\"rut\"!\n\nThis mixture of ancient Puritanism and advanced sociology is as\nincongruous as it is mischievous. A woman who sincerely regards\nsex-pleasure in the way generally implied by the use of the word\n\"lust\"--a woman who has not the same healthy desire of it as her\npartner--has no right to marry: except, of course, to marry a man with\nsimilarly antique views. A wife of such a kind may very well consider\nthat she is being \"paid\" to surrender her body. The normal wife is\nnot paid for that at all. She is paid--if there is any paying--to care\nfor the home and her children: which is as well earned a payment as\nthe fee of a lawyer. And from the sentimental point of view it does\nnot make a particle of difference whether she is paid out of her\nhusband's income or out of the coffers of the State. She would still\n\"sell her body,\" if there is any selling of body. But there is\nnot. Maternity and sex-pleasure are entirely different matters.\n\nI am deliberately trying to undermine the plea for the endowment of\nmotherhood, because the proposal seems to me to present very grave\ndifficulties which even so penetrating a sociologist as Mr. H. G.\nWells has, apparently, not appreciated. Mr. Wells is, of course, in a\nvery different position from the Feminist writers who advocate the\ncomplete endowment or maintenance of wives or mothers by the State.\nSuch a scheme would cost about \u00a3300,000,000 a year, and need not be\ndiscussed. Mr. Wells suggests rather a modest contribution per child\nborn (leaving out, I assume, wealthier mothers); a practicable scheme,\nwith much in its favour. Yet it seems to me that such endowment would\nmean that we would encourage the weakest in will, the most sensual,\nthe least intelligent and least provident of our people, to breed.\nIntelligent women would not abandon the practice of restricting births\nbecause the State offered them a few shillings per child. The better\nclass--whether of manual or professional workers--would have to pay\nfor the undesirable fertility of the worst class. We are just\nbeginning to realise that quality of children is more precious than\nquantity, and the endowment of motherhood would not encourage this\nsaner view. The kind of brute who is at present restrained by the\npaternity-law would be restrained no longer: the rougher type of\nhusband--a very numerous type--would pay so much less to his wife when\nhe found the State contributing (either in cash or kind) to her: the\nman who at present practises restriction, not out of consideration for\nhis wife and family, but to have more shillings for himself, would\ncease to practise it, and lay a greater burden on his wife.\n\nBut, while there seem to be such grave objections to the endowment of\nmotherhood that we do better to strengthen women in their individual\ndemand of justice, we must remember that the wife will have the\nadvantage of other changes in the home. Domestic service is becoming\nmore and more repugnant to girls, and some form of co-operative and\nefficient housekeeping, with common servants and restaurant, will be\nadopted. Some day a photograph of a twentieth-century suburb will\nprovoke a smile. Perhaps the museum of the future will set up models\nof our establishments, just as we set up in our ethnographical\ngalleries models of a Kaffir or a Papuan household. Boys and girls\nwill gaze with admiring delight at the na\u00efvet\u00e9 of the model: a\nthousand brick boxes, separated by a thousand little gardens, with\nthree thousand little chimneys smoking, a thousand amateur cooks\nperspiring over a thousand fires, and a thousand inefficient\nservant-girls flirting with the servants of rival butchers and\ndairymen. The common nursery will especially relieve the mother and\nlower the death-rate. The State will one day have an interest in\nseeing that each babe ushered into the world, at such pain and\nsacrifice, becomes a useful citizen. If any mothers care to entrust\nthe child more fully to it, the State will find it profitable to\nrespond. These things can be arranged without more detriment to\nparental affection than there is in the case of women--often women who\nwrite beautiful things in defence of the old tradition--who have\nnurses for the child and send it later to a distant school for the\ngreater part of the year.\n\nReforms of this kind will enormously relieve the home life and enable\neven mothers to earn, if they wish, quite as much as the State would\never be able to award them. The work will be better done, by trained\nworkers, at less cost. People do not reflect that this change has been\nproceeding for centuries. Once the wife brewed the ale, and baked the\nbread, and spun the linen: later she entrusted these things to experts\nworking for the community, and reserved for herself the making of\npreserves, pickles, underclothing, and antimacassars: now these things\nhave gone to the expert, and the wife confines her amateur efforts to\nscolding children and cooking refractory joints. She will be relieved\nwhen it is all over, and we shall have no more of the \"beautiful\ndoll\" or the domestic drudge. The independent position and greater\nleisure and broader interest in life will make her intellectual\nactivity more similar to that of man's.\n\nI speak, of course, of the mass of women, and do not forget that\nalready the intellect of alert and thoughtful women is equal to that\nof men of the corresponding class. The majority will be, as it were,\ndifferently orientated toward life by these changes. A saner muscular\nactivity will restore the balance of the system, and will rid them of\nthe excessive nerve-energy, particularly of the sympathetic system,\nwhich finds expression in facile and explosive emotion. There will\nassuredly always be a bias toward sentiment in woman, and we have no\nreason to fear a deterioration of the distinctively feminine\nsentiments of tenderness, refinement, and sympathy. The relief from\nthe more irritating domesticities ought to accentuate them. On the\nother hand, the idea of obeying the male or practising self-sacrifice\nfor his undue benefit, will certainly disappear; and it is quite time\nthat it did. Self-sacrifice, in case of need, comes instinctively to\neither sex, but the kind of self-sacrifice which a selfish masculine\ntradition has pressed on women is degrading to the man and unjust to\nwife and daughter. All that is attractive and really beneficent in\nwoman will be fostered, but on the emotional side it will become less\nand less characteristic of one sex. The sharp contrast of the sexes\ntends to disappear. There is something grotesque about the traditional\nidea that the human male must be distinguished by a greater capacity\nfor taking alcohol and using meaningless expletives and telling sexual\nstories. Even in physical strength and athletic skill the sexes are\napproaching; nor does one find any loss of charm or grace in some of\nthe finest women athletes.\n\nThese changes are proceeding, and, apart from inevitable errors and\nexcesses, on which caricaturists fasten with their genial\nunscrupulousness, the result is promising. Contemporary expressions of\nalarm are often ludicrous. Thousands of ladies who are horrified at\nthe emergence of \"a new sex\" are themselves contriving, by means\nwhich would have caused their prolific grandmothers to raise white\nhands to heaven, to limit their families to two children. We take our\nreform in small doses, as if complete social health were a thing to be\nconsidered very seriously. Yet if one patiently traces in imagination\nthe effect of all these changes on the womanhood of the race, one\nforesees a generation of women which recalls Shelley's lines:\n\n \"And women, too, frank, beautiful, and kind\n As the free heaven which rains fresh light and dew\n On the wide earth, past; gentle radiant forms,\n From custom's evil taint exempt and pure;\n Speaking the wisdom once they could not think,\n Looking emotions once they feared to feel,\n And changed to all which once they dared not be,\n Yet, being now, made earth like heaven; nor pride,\n Nor jealousy, nor envy, nor ill-shame,\n The bitterest of those drops of treasured gall,\n Spoilt the sweet taste of the nepenthe, love.\"\n\nGrant the poet his licence; women are not more likely than men to\nbecome angels. The moral superiority which some Feminist writers claim\nfor their sex is founded on a curiously narrow view of life; if man,\ninstead of woman, had to pay the penalty of sexual intercourse, we\nshould probably find the aggression on the other side. Yet the most\nsober-minded of us must expect from this healthier balance of powers,\nthis easing of the domestic burden, this limitation of care to a few\nchildren, and this independence of marital generosity or marital\nselfishness, a great advancement in the character and happiness of\nwoman.\n\nShelley, however, was thinking less of wives than of free women, and\neconomic independence will swell their numbers. The changes I have\ndescribed will make marriage far less onerous, but they will also make\nit easier for a woman to dispense with marriage, and before the end of\nthe twentieth century there will be in every city a growth of\ntemporary unions and independent conduct. Woman will be mistress,\nmorally and economically, of her own destiny; she will consult neither\nhusband nor priest. The plain moral law, which forbids a man to\ninflict pain or injustice, will be more faithfully observed than it\never was before. There will be an immense reduction of the hypocrisy,\nthe prostitution, the misery and illness, which this fictitious law of\nchastity has always caused; and the alteration of public opinion will\nremove from a woman the unpleasant consequences which unwedded love\nentails at the present time. It is preposterous to say that the State\nwill be injured by these changes, and it seems clear that woman will\nbe happier, more healthily developed, and not less tender and graceful\nthan she can be under the present reign of shams.\n\n\n CHAPTER VIII.\n SHAMS OF THE SCHOOL\n\nTHE constructive scheme which I have in mind throughout this\ncriticism of our prejudices and institutions may, as I said, be summed\nessentially in two words: industrial organisation and education. When\nwe have reformed our administrative machinery, which we miscall\n\"government,\" and abandoned our military and naval atrocities, and\nsimplified international life, our chosen public servants will find\nthat these two are their chief concerns. Probably the supreme concern\nwill--once we have constructed an orderly industrial machinery--be\neducation, in the sense which I would attach to the word. Every year a\nmillion new citizens will join the community, and it will be the\nState's first business to see that they are thoroughly prepared in\nevery respect to contribute to its weal and happiness, and that they\nmaintain throughout life sufficient intellectual alertness to control\ntheir common concerns with wisdom and in a progressive spirit. It is\nas a necessary preliminary to this that I have dealt critically and\nreconstructively with the home and the parent.\n\nThat glorification of indolence which we call the principle of\n_laissez-faire_ is so successful in this department of our public life\nthat what ought to be the State's chief concern is hardly ever\nmentioned in our orgies of parliamentary debate. We peck at it\noccasionally. We enact that babies must have orange-boxes, and that\nchildren must not smoke cigarettes or approach within a certain number\nof yards of a bar (so that we get bar-scenes outside the door); and\noccasionally the representatives of rival sects get up a grand debate\non the Bible in the school. These things emphasise the general\nneglect. _Laissez-faire_ meant originally, \"Leave things as they\nare\"--it sounded better in French, but, like many ancient\nsentiments, it was converted into a respectable philosophy: \"The\nState must leave as much as possible to the individual and the\namateur.\" Nineteenth-century Radicals fought heroically for this\nConservative principle.\n\nEducation, however, was so flagrantly neglected by the parent and the\nChurch that we had to compromise and take the child's mind out of\ntheir care: leaving its body and character to the old hazards. At last\nit dawns on us that a sound body and character are just as important\nto the State as the capacity to read comic journals and stories: that\nthe entire being of the child needs expert training, and it is worth\nthe State's while to give it. This broad ideal of education is\nincreasingly accepted by p\u00e6dagogists and social writers, and it is\nalready largely embodied in educational practice. It has provoked the\nusual reaction, the usual determination that we will not allow our\nways to be reformed without a struggle. \"Advanced\" teachers fight\nwith Conservative teachers and politicians (particularly of the vestry\ntype), and the familiar old hymn-tunes are heard throughout the land.\nWe must not weaken parental responsibility: we must not lessen the\ncharm of the domestic circle: we must not encroach on the sphere of\nthe Church: we must beware of Socialism: we must resist the thin end\nof the wedge wherever we see one.\n\nWhy did the State, in the first half of the nineteenth century,\nundertake the task of educating the young? I do not mean that\nState-education was a new thing in history when a few European\nGovernments adopted it little over a century ago. The Roman Empire had\nhad a very fair system of municipal and State-education, and it is one\nof the gravest charges against the clergy that they suffered it to\ndecay, and allowed or compelled ninety per cent. of their followers to\nremain in a state of gross ignorance for fourteen hundred years. At\nthe end of the eighteenth century, as the revolt against\necclesiastical authority spread, the idea of State-education was\nrevived. In England the clergy warmly resisted the progress of the\nidea, but the appalling ignorance of the people proved intolerable to\nthe increasing band of reformers. Quakers like Lancaster and Agnostics\nlike Robert Owen demanded and provided schools for the children of the\nworkers, and the Church of England was forced to meet this danger of\nunsectarian education by founding a rival and orthodox association.\nBut for fifty years the schooling remained so primitive, and the\nproportion of illiterates remained so enormous, that at last the\nbishops were brushed aside and the Government was compelled to resume\nthe work of the old Roman municipalities and Senate.\n\nThe motives of the reformers and statesmen who secured this advance\nwere complex. Some of them were frankly anti-clerical and eager to\nundermine superstition: some of them were business-men who pleaded\nthat a lettered worker was worth more to the State than an illiterate\nworker. The predominant feeling was, as it had been among the Stoic\nreformers at Rome, humanitarian. The gross ignorance of the mass of\nthe people was a disgrace to civilisation and a source of brutality\nand crime: it was a human duty to educate. It was very widely\nrecognised that this sentiment imposed on us a duty of developing the\nchild's character as well as its mind, but here the Churches were\ninflexible. Unblushingly asserting that they were the historic\neducators of Europe, they refused to relinquish their last hold on the\nschool, and the State was compelled to accept the compromise of\nreligious instruction in the public schools, as well as the endowment\nof sectarian schools. As to the third part of the ideal of education,\nthe cultivation of the body, we may admit that science itself was not\nyet sufficiently advanced to demand it.\n\nWith the growth of democratic aspirations, the Conservative began to\nsee a danger in this plea that the community must see to the full\ndevelopment of all its children, and new phrases were invented.\n\"Industrial efficiency\" was the most plausible of these checks on\neducation. The manual workers were to have their intellects awakened\nto the slight extent which was needed to make them better instruments\nof production, but no further: lest they should become dissatisfied\nwith their position of inferiority and disturb our excellent\nindustrial order. Educators, however, refused to be restrained by this\nkind of sociology. It was their business to develop the child's\nintelligence, and they had a fine ambition to do it thoroughly. They\nbuilt infant-schools, which took the tender young away from their\nmothers, to the great advantage of both. They found that large numbers\nof children were too poorly fed or too defective in body to receive\nreal education, and they instituted drill and demanded cheap or free\nmeals and medical inspection. They abolished the half-timer, and\nraised the age of compulsory attendance. They began to resent the idea\nthat lessons from the Bible were a training of character. These\ndevelopments have alarmed many. They begin to see that in the long-run\nthese things will impose on the State the duty of developing the\nchild's whole being--body, mind, and character--before the boy or\ngirl is allowed to enter the industrial world. We hesitate, as we do\nin face of all large and fully developed ideals, and look round for\nways of escape.\n\nThe chief of these evasions is still the doctrine of what we call\n\"parental responsibility.\" Some day the idea that a parent is the\nbest-fitted person to train a child will be regarded as a medieval\nsuperstition. The parent is as amateurish in training children as in\ncooking or making frocks. The notion that \"nature tells\" a mother\nwhat to do is part of the crude psychology of the Schoolmen. From the\nmoment of birth, and during the months before birth, the human mother\nhas no inspiration whatever. She goes by tradition, by the crude\nadvice of elders and neighbours, as every observer of the arrival of\nthe first baby knows. A cat acts by what we call \"instinct,\"--by\ncertain neuro-muscular reactions which natural selection has\nperfected,--but a human being has intelligence instead of instinct,\nand the first thing intelligence enjoins is that experts ought to be\ntrained for particular duties. The death-rate in every civilised\ncountry has gone down enormously since we ceased to rely on motherly\ninstinct, or grandmotherly fables. A time may come, therefore, when\nthe State will receive a bearing woman in a properly appointed home,\nand will care for the child from the moment of birth until, in its\nlater teens, it is equipped for work. I will suggest in the next\nchapter that this ought by no means to be regarded as the completion\nof education; here I am concerned only with the earlier part. Many are\nconvinced that this is the last and logical term of the development on\nwhich we have entered.\n\nI am avoiding remote ideals as much as possible, but it is important\nto meet the prejudice which opposes reform along this line. Many\npeople tell us that, if this unnatural dethronement of the mother and\ninvasion of the home are to be the final terms of our present\ndevelopment, they will resist it at every step: on the familiar\nthin-end-of-the-wedge principle. Our beautiful \"home life\" must be\npreserved at all costs. Our \"parental instincts\" shall not be\nenfeebled.\n\nCandidly, in what proportion of the real homes of England, as distinct\nfrom the home of a fiction-writer, is the life \"beautiful\"? In\nwhat proportion does it not rather present the spectacle of an\noverburdened mother struggling heroically to live up to her\nreputation for gentleness under the strain of ill or wayward children\nand an irritating husband? In what proportion are the beautiful homes\nof the novel written by spinsters or bachelors, or people who restrict\nthe number of their children, or men whose posthumous biographies do\nnot reveal a very sweet home life? I believe it was Carlyle who\noriginated that fond boast that no nation in the world has a word for\n\"home\" like the English. It was certainly Dickens who gave us the\nmost touching pictures of domestic tenderness and happiness. How many\nmothers of the working and lower middle class do not dread the\nholidays, when the children threaten to be near them all day? How many\nare capable of training children? How many do not regard a blow as the\nsupreme moral agency? How many would not welcome the easing of their\nburden, and the training of their children by experts? And why in the\nworld should mothers be likely to have less affection for their\nchildren because they have infinitely less trouble with them, and see\nthem only in their smiling hours?\n\nThe happiest phase of English home life is, surely, found in those\nmiddle-class families which can send the children away to school for\nfour-fifths of the year and welcome them home periodically in the\nholiday mood. In the vast majority of cases the teacher has to\nstruggle despairingly against the influence of the home and the\nstreet; for it is to the street that the mother entrusts the child. A\nlady (an educational expert) once observed to me that it was\nremarkable to find the children in Gaelic districts of Scotland\nspeaking the purest English. On the contrary, it was wholly natural,\nand it points an important p\u00e6dagogical moral. The children learned\nEnglish _from their teachers only_; there was no corrupt English\ndialect in the home or village to undo the teacher's lessons. In\nother matters besides language the school-lessons are constantly\nfrustrated outside the school.\n\nI pass frequently through the stream of children pouring out of a\nlarge and handsome suburban school. It is not in a slum. There are\nbroad green fields on every side, and there are vast and beautiful\npublic spaces not far away. But the homes from which many of the\nchildren come are squalid, and the street-scenes, especially in front\nof the local inn, are often disgusting. On more than one occasion I\nhave heard the men openly talk of their practice of unnatural vice. I\nhave seen a girl of ten watch her intoxicated father misconduct\nhimself with a prostitute, while the mother--whose attention was\ncalled to the fact by the child, in the mono-syllabic language of the\ndistrict--chatted with a neighbour. And I am not surprised to notice\nthat, when the children burst from school, which they hate, numbers of\nthem break into foul language, indecent behaviour, and fighting. Their\nworld, outside the school, is one mighty drag on the teacher's\nefforts. When they leave school, with brains half-developed and only\nthe maxims of ancient Jud\u00e6a (at which half their world scoffs) to\nguide their conduct, when they enter workshops and laundries and join\nthe company of ring-eyed boys and girls in the first flush of\nsex-development, they shed the feeble influence of the school-lessons\nin a few months.\n\nThe district I have in mind is a very common type of district: a\nhealthy, open suburb on the fringe of London, tainted by one of those\nolder villages in which the poorest workers are apt to congregate. It\nhas an expensive Church-Institute and numerous chapels. You may see\nthe thing in almost any part of London, and most other towns. I have a\nvivid recollection of passing from a Catholic elementary school and\nstrict home in Manchester to a large warehouse thirty-five years ago.\nThere is little change in that respect to-day. A very few years ago a\nManchester boy passed the same way; and a month or two later, his\nfather told me, he returned home chuckling over a \"funny story\"\nabout Christ. The school fails, not from lack of devotion in the\nteachers, but because the child learns more in the street, and often\nin the home; and these lessons are, somehow, more congenial.\n\nNow if we are not satisfied with this comparative waste of effort and\nsterility of result, we have to consider candidly the ambition of the\neducationist. He wants to turn out a young citizen with an active\nmind, a sound body, and a character prepared to resist the more\ndegrading influences of the world he will enter. He cannot carry out\nthis aim in the case of every child entrusted to him, but he can in\nmost cases, if the State will help him. He must have his children\nproperly nourished: neither underfed nor stuffed with coarse food by\nignorant mothers. He must have them seasonably clothed and shod: again\nthe mothers need instruction and pressure. He must have, not only\ndrill and more natural forms of exercise, but more control over the\nchildren outside of school-hours; he is already beginning, with great\npromise of good, to walk and play with them, to take them to museums,\nand so on. He must have adequate medical assistance, and must have the\nsupport of the law in counteracting dirty homes and careless parents.\nHe must keep the child still a few years longer at school, because a\nchild only begins to be really educable at thirteen or fourteen. He\nmust have the encouragement of knowing that the more promising boys\nand girls will find the avenue open to higher schools, and that the\ncommunity will make some serious provision of mental stimulation for\nthe adolescent and the adult. And in order to carry out properly this\nlarge and promising scheme of training he must have twice as many\ncolleagues as he has, so that each may be able to give individual\nattention to pupils, and in order that too great demands be not made\non their hours of rest.\n\nBut where are we to find the very large sums of money which would be\nrequired for carrying out such a scheme? I wish everybody in England\nrealised that we should have the funds to carry out this scheme in its\nentirety, in its most advanced developments, if we abolished\nmilitarism; that if we had done this before 1914, we should have had,\nin the cost of the war, the funds to carry out such a scheme two or\nthree times over. We have to reflect also whether the increased\nprosperity of England would not pay the cost. There are other\nconsiderations which I give later, but I would add here at least a\nword about experience in other lands. At New York and Chicago I\nvisited schools--elementary and secondary, but both free--with which\nwe have nothing to compare in this country: palatial structures with\nsuperb equipment and devoted staffs. Yet when I asked ratepayers how\nthey contrived to spend so lavishly on education, the three or four\npublic men I asked were so little conscious of a burden that they were\nunable to explain satisfactorily where the funds came from!\n\nWe are, however, making progress here and there,--Bradford, for\ninstance, has had the courage to be quite Socialistic in its care of\nthe young,--and the triple ideal of education is generally, if at\ntimes reluctantly, recognised. As far as the education of the body is\nconcerned, in fact, we have no ground for quarrelling with our\nteachers, whatever we may say of some of our educational authorities.\nMedical inspection, drill, hygiene, play, excursions, feeding, etc.,\nare discussed very conscientiously at every meeting of teachers, and\nthe reforms proposed are more or less admitted in all places, even\nunder the London County Council. The teachers themselves often go far\nbeyond their prescribed tasks in endeavouring to help the children. In\nplaces they yield part of their necessary midday rest to attend to the\nfeeding of poor children: which I found admirably, and most cheerfully\nand expeditiously, done in Chicago (where 1500 children at one school\nwere quietly and excellently fed in thirty minutes) by a committee of\nladies of the district. They give Saturdays and holidays for\nconducting visits to museums or excursions, or for controlling sports.\nWhat is chiefly needed is that the authorities should deal stringently\nwith backward sectarian schools, and provide a very much larger supply\nof teachers and servants. The municipal authority of the richest city\nin the world--the London County Council--is scandalously stingy and\nreactionary in this respect.\n\nWhen we turn to the question of educating the intelligence, it is not\npossible to approve so cordially. No one, assuredly, can fail to\nappreciate the zeal and efforts of educationists and teachers,\nespecially in the last few decades. Hardly any body of professional\nmen and women among us, certainly no body of public servants, has a\ndeeper and sounder ambition to conduct its work on the most effective\nlines. A vast literature is published, frequent congresses are held,\nand the science of psychology is assiduously cultivated. One must\nappreciate also the fatal limitations of the teacher's activity; as\nlong as we withdraw children from him at the age of fourteen,\neducation is impossible. It may seem, therefore, ungracious or unwise\nto criticise,--though I am not wholly a layman in regard to\neducation,--but there is at least one feature of our school life to\nwhich I would draw serious critical attention.\n\nThe general public is apt to express this feature resentfully by\nsaying that the modern teacher \"crams.\" Better informed critics\nhave put it that modern education is little more than a process of\n\"encephalisation,\" or the imprinting of certain facts on the\nchild's brain almost as mechanically as the indenting of marks on\nthe cylinder of a gramophone. Each of these criticisms implies an\ninjustice. Educationists and teachers have, of course, discussed this\nvery point for decades, and the present system is the formulation of\ntheir deliberate judgment. They still differ amongst themselves as to\nthe proportion of memory-work and stimulation-work, but it is too late\nin the day (if accurate at all) to tell teachers that to \"educate\"\nmeans \"to draw out\" the child's \"faculties,\" not to put in.\nEvery elementary teacher knows that he must train the child to think\nas well as furnish it with positive information. The point one may\nlegitimately raise is whether the general educational practice\nrepresents a fair adjustment of the two functions.\n\nIt is essential in such disputes to have clear principles. What is the\naim of education? The current phrase, \"to make good citizens,\" is\nfar too vague. A good citizen is, in a large employer's mind, a man\nwho will work for two pounds a week and not annoy wealthier people by\ndemanding more: in a clergyman's mind, one who goes to church. The\npoint is serious and relevant, because there is a growing tendency\namong the middle and upper class to insist on a return to the ideal of\nthe old Church of England school society: the children must not be\neducated in such a way that they will aspire above the station to\nwhich the Almighty has called them. As, however, the educationist will\nprobably reply at once that his duty is to do all in his power to\npromote intelligence during such period as the State thinks advisable,\nwe need not discuss the larger ideal of developing the child's\npowers on general humanitarian grounds.\n\nBut glance at the manuals which are used in our schools, and consider\nwhether we have as yet realised the true ideal of education. These\nmanuals, and the methods employed, are the outcome of a hundred years\nof critical discussion, yet I venture to say that they need to be\nentirely rewritten. I pass over the infant-schools and earlier\nstandards, where the first general ideas are carefully, and on the\nwhole judiciously, implanted. As soon, however, as the child enters\nits teens, it is painfully overloaded with memory-work. I take, for\nexample, the manuals of geography and history which are used in\neducating children of eleven in a first-class London secondary school.\nThey are crammed with information which will never be of the least use\nto one man in ten thousand, and which we have no right whatever to\nimpose on the young brain with so much necessary work to do.\n\nThe manual of early English history which I have before me is a\ncharacteristically modern production. Instead of the grim old\nparagraphs, in alternate large and small type, on which the eye of the\nchild nearly always gazes with reluctance, there are vivid sketches of\nlife in successive ages. There is danger, perhaps, that the child will\npass to the opposite extreme, and take the manual as a story-book, a\nwork of ephemeral interest; at least careful guidance will be needed\nto enable it to select the necessary material which is to be\nmemorised. But the chief defect still is the overloading of the pages\nwith matter of no serious usefulness. The doings of Ethelbert and\nEthelfrith and Redwald and Penda and Offa, whose very names bewilder\nthe young mind, are compressed into a few forbidding paragraphs,\ninstead of being relegated to the University. Later come Ethelwulf and\nOsburh and Ethelbald and Ethelbert; and Sweyn Forkbeard and Olaf\nTrygvasson and Guhilda; and Rhodri and Llywelyn and Griffith ap Rees\nand Own Gwynedd and Egfrith and Malcolm Canmore and John Balliol. How\nmany of us know, or need to know, a word about them, and their\nfamilies, and their battles? Then the French wars are told in detail,\nand the pages bristle with dates and French names and genealogies; and\nthe Wars of the Roses introduce a new series of repellent and useless\nnames and dates. The child, in a word, is enormously overburdened with\nstuff which we adults would refuse to commit to memory or even to\nread. Yet this is a very modern manual, the last word in the\nadaptation of history to the mind of a child of ten or eleven.\n\nThe manual of European geography, also, is one of the most modern and\nenlightened that a teacher can choose, but it imposes a mass of\npedantic and useless knowledge. Isotherms and isobars and the freezing\nof the Oder and Vistula and Danube; the navigability of the Ebro and\nGuadalquiver, and the wheat-growing areas of France and Spain, and the\nindustries of Lille and Roubaix and Magdeburg and Lombardy and Smyrna;\nin a word, fully one-third of the details in the little manual--the\ndetails which it is most difficult to remember, which tax the\nchild's brain most, and will be forgotten soonest and with least\nloss--ought not to have been inserted. The whole plan is academic and\npedantic: it is built on the supposition that the child must have a\nsummary of the kind of knowledge which a geographical expert would\nhave to master. And in later years the child must laboriously cover\nthe whole globe with the same unnecessary attention to useless\ndetails.\n\nIn mathematics, at least, the same criticism will hold. Geometry is,\nof course, no longer a mere task of memorisation; but the positive\nknowledge of problems is not of the least use, save in a few\nexceptional cases, and the training of the mind might be achieved by\nlessons in natural science. In natural science itself one might\nquarrel with much of the material given: not one in ten thousand, for\ninstance, will even remember in later years the elements of botany.\nBut at least we are, in giving scientific information, training the\nyoung to inquire into the nature of positive reality and initiating\nthem to branches of knowledge in which they can easily advance in\nlater years, since we have so fine a popular literature of science,\nand the advance will be a considerable gain in their whole mental\noutlook. It is chiefly in regard to history and geography that time\nand labour might be spared, and more leisure given for ensuring that\nthe child will assimilate the knowledge imparted. Mental energy should\nnot be wasted in mastering an immense collection of facts which,\nexperience shows, are certain to be forgotten within a few years.\n\nI may also recall that, when we choose to carry out the elementary\nreform of abolishing the plurality of tongues, a vast economy will be\nmade in the curriculum, and really useful knowledge will be imparted\nmore thoroughly and with finer attention to the texture of the\nchild's brain. The academic plea, that there is excellent training\nin a thorough study of Latin and Greek, may be freely granted. But\nthere is just as excellent a training in the thorough study of such\nbranches of science as are fitted for the school, and the positive\ninformation gained is permanently useful.\n\nIf we thus eliminate languages and simplify geography and history we\ngive the modern teacher a more hopeful opportunity. It is surely the\nuniversal experience that we forget nine-tenths of the geographical\ndetails we learn at school, and we find little inconvenience in\nre-learning such as we need to master in later years. A judicious\noutline-scheme, with more physiography and less of useless detail, and\na fuller account of one's national geography (not because it\ndescribes the child's country, but because it is practical\ninformation) would suffice. The remainder, or part of it, could be\nimparted in technical training for commerce. History should be wholly\nremodelled. It is ludicrous to-day to make the child grow pale and\nworn over the past royal families and wars of England, and dismiss the\ngeneral history of the race in a page or two. A fine scheme of the\nhistory, and even the prehistory and origin, of the human race, with\nso much fuller information about the child's own country as is\nuseful for the understanding of its institutions and monuments, could\nbe imparted in less time, with more interest, and with far greater\nprofit. The patriotic sham deeply vitiates our scheme of instruction\nand makes the training of the child scandalously one-sided and\nexacting. Germany has recently shown us the pernicious results of this\npolitical perversion of education.\n\nPassing to the moral education of children, we at once find it cruelly\ndistorted and enfeebled by a religious sham of the least defensible\nnature. Such moralists as Kant and Emerson hardly exaggerated the\nhuman importance of moral law, however much they failed to understand\nits human significance. Character is the pivot on which life turns.\nThe general diffusion of fine qualities of character would transform\nthe earth, quite apart from economic and political reform, and lead to\na speedier settlement of our industrial and international\ndifficulties. It is therefore of supreme importance to train the will\nor character of the child from its earliest years. Yet there is no\nother branch of our education, and hardly any other branch of our\nlife, in which we tolerate so crude and ludicrous a pretence of work.\n\nThe education authority of the Metropolis of England would, one\nsupposes, have the advantage of the finest expert advice in the world.\nEnter one of the thousands of schools under its control, however, and\nask how the training of character is conducted. A teacher informs you\nthat at college he has learned only to impart \"Biblical\nknowledge.\" He will show you a scheme of lessons founded on the Old\nand New Testament. The younger the child, the more preposterous the\nlesson. In the lower standards the child must learn the story of the\nCreation, the Fall, the Deluge, etc. It is still too young to imagine\nthat its teacher may, at the command of our education authorities, be\ngrossly deceiving it, or to perceive that these ancient Babylonian\nlegends contain no particular incentive to virtue. When it passes to\nthe higher standards it is initiated to some equally remarkable\nstories about the early history of mankind and the early conduct of\nthe Deity. The teacher rarely believes these things, and it may be\nassumed that men like Mr. Sidney Webb, who voted for this scheme of\neducation in the L.C.C., do not. If the child has intelligence enough\nto raise the question of veracity, it must be snubbed or deceived. A\nLondon teacher told me that on one occasion, when he had described\nsome of the remarkable proceedings of the Israelites in ancient\nPalestine, a precocious youngster asked: \"Please, sir, is it\ntrue?\" Our education authorities forbid him to reply to such a\nquestion. Indeed, his headmaster was a Nonconformist (very zealous for\nBible lessons), and would find a way to punish any departure from the\nappointed untruths.\n\nThe lessons from the New Testament are, it is true, devoid of this\natmosphere of Oriental animalism, ferocity, and superstition which\nclings to the Old Testament lesson, but here again the teacher is\nforced to violate the elementary principles of education. He must\ngravely tell the story of the miraculous birth, the crucifixion, and\nthe resurrection of Christ. He probably knows that some of the most\nlearned divines in England and other countries regard these stories as\nfalse, but he must deliberately and solemnly tell the young that\nChrist was God and that these things are written in the \"Word of\nGod.\" He must repeat parables which we know to have been borrowed\n(and often spoiled in the borrowing) from the Jewish rabbis, yet teach\nthat this was the unique feature of Christ's preaching. He must use\nall his ingenuity to wring a moral lesson out of the parables of the\nworkers in the vineyard, the royal banquet, and so on. He must keep up\nthis elaborate deception of the child until it leaves his care; and he\nknows that, in nine cases out of ten in London or any large city, the\nchild is already hearing on all sides sneers at these ancient myths,\nand laughing at the system which inculcates them in the name of all\nthat is most sacred.\n\nThe aim of our London authorities, and education authorities generally\nin England, is not to train character, but to teach the contents of\nthe Bible. Why a civic authority should include the teaching of the\nBible no man knows; and whether a civic authority can be indifferent\nto the truth or untruth of the lessons it imposes few seem to ask. Mr.\nSidney Webb, endorsing these lessons, said that the Bible was \"great\nliterature\"; and scores of our parochial legislators, who were not\ngenerally known to admire great literature (but _were_ known to have\nnumbers of Nonconformist constituents), fervently repeated the phrase.\nDoes the child appreciate or hear a single word about the literary\nqualities of the Bible? Does a literary lesson need to be a deliberate\nlesson in untruth? Can we find no great literature which has not the\ntaint of untruth?\n\nDr. Clifford says that these lessons tend to make \"good citizens.\"\nIt is not at first sight apparent why we should go to the literature\nof an ancient, mendacious, polygamous, and bloodthirsty tribe for\nlessons in citizenship in a modern civilisation. Let us suppose,\nhowever, that the ingenious teacher has wrung a moral of truthfulness,\nfraternity, respect for women, self-reliance, and universal justice\nout of these peculiar records of ancient Jud\u00e6a. Follow the child, in\nimagination, into the later years of citizenship. He hardly leaves the\nschool before he learns that the whole Biblical scheme is very\ngenerally ridiculed, and is rejected even by large numbers of learned\ntheologians. Before many years, at least, he is fairly sure to learn\nthis. The prescriptions of the Sermon on the Mount he, of course,\nnever had the slightest intention of observing. The teacher, even\nwhile he reads the quixotic counsels, knows, and possibly notes with\napproval, that the boy's code is: \"If any smite thee on the one\ncheek, smite him forthwith on both.\" But the boy now learns that\nfrom the Creation to the Resurrection the whole story is seriously\ndisputed and is rejected by the majority of well-educated people. He\nlooks back on his \"Bible lessons\" and his teacher with derision,\nand he discards the whole authority of his code of conduct. Surely an\nadmirable foundation for virtue and citizenship!\n\nInto the larger question of the relation of religious education and\ncrime I cannot enter here. I have shown elsewhere that France,\nVictoria, and New Zealand, the countries with longest experience of\nsecular education, have the best record among civilised nations in the\nreduction of crime. The carelessness of clerical writers as to the\ntruth of their statements on this subject is appalling. There is not a\ntittle of reason in criminal statistics, or any other exact\nindications of national health, for retaining religious lessons in our\nschools. They are there merely because the clergy find it conducive to\ntheir prestige to have their sacred book enthroned with honour in the\nnational scheme of education. As in the case of divorce, they ask us\nto maintain immorality in the name of religion. German schools are\nsaturated with religious teaching, yet we have seen the issue of it\nall.\n\nFor one hundred years our English school-system has been hampered and\nperverted by this clerical insistence on religious lessons. Parents,\nthey sometimes say, desire it; but when the Trades Union Congress, the\nonly large body of parents which ever pronounced on the subject,\nrepeatedly voted for secular education, by overwhelming majorities,\nthe clergy, through the minority of their followers, could only secure\nthe exclusion of the subject from the agenda. Neither do the majority\nof teachers desire it; while educationists, as a whole, resent this\ngrievous complication of their work. Nothing but the complete\nsecularisation of all schools receiving funds from the nation or\nmunicipality will enable us to advance. The clergy must do their own\nwork on their own premises. The moral pretext is a thin disguise of an\neffort to use the nation's resources and authority for the purpose\nof attaching children to the churches.\n\nWriters on the subject are not wholly agreed whether we ought to\nsubstitute moral lessons for the discarded Bible lessons. We can in\nsuch a matter proceed only on probabilities, and it seems to me that\njudicious lessons for the training of character are very desirable. I\ndo not so much mean abstract or direct lessons on the various\nqualities of character. If such lessons (on truthfulness, honesty,\nmanliness, etc.) were tactfully and sensibly conducted, they could be\nof great service. There is really not much danger of turning the\naverage British schoolboy into a prig. But indirect lessons,\nespecially from history and biography, should be more effective.\n\nIn either case our teachers would need special training for the\nlessons, and no philosophic or religious or anti-religious view of\nmoral principles should be admitted. Experience has surely shown how\nlittle use there is in giving children a \"categorical imperative,\"\nor a set of arbitrary commandments, or an \u00e6sthetic lesson on\n\"modesty.\" You cannot in one hour teach the child to think, and in\nthe next expect it to accept your instruction without thinking,\nbecause you are not prepared to give reasons for your commands. It is\nsometimes forgotten that even children share the mental awakening of\nour age, and must be treated wisely. The American or the Australian\nchild well illustrates the change that is taking place. It is\nincreasingly dangerous to give children dogmatic or mystic instruction\nin rules of conduct, nor is it in the least necessary to base this\nimportant part of their training on disputable grounds. Every quality\nof character that is inculcated may be related to the child's actual\nor future experience of life, and will find an ample sanction therein.\nLife is full of material for such lessons: material far richer and\neasier of assimilation than the doings of an ancient Oriental people\nwith a different code of morals. Let these lessons of history and\ncontemporary life be developed, let the child learn in plain human\nspeech the social significance of justice and honour, avoiding\nnamby-pamby dissertations on the beauty of virtue, and there will be\nplaced in the mind of the young, not an exotic plant which the child\nwill be tempted to eradicate, but a germ which will grow and bear\nfruit under the influence of its own experience.\n\nThe modern ideal of education further implies that the State shall\nprovide higher tuition for those youths and maidens to whom it will be\nprofitable to impart it. Scholastic evolution is advancing so rapidly\nin this direction that the ideal hardly needs vindication. Seventeen\nhundred years ago such a \"ladder of education\" existed in Europe;\nfrom the municipally-endowed elementary school the promising youth\ncould pass, through secondary colleges, to the imperial schools at\nRome. Had that model been retained and improved instead of being\nabandoned for fourteen centuries, Europe would be in an immeasurably\ngreater state of efficiency than it is. We are restoring and improving\nthe pagan model, and there are signs that in time we shall have a\ncomplete system of secondary, technical, and higher education, quite\napart from the schools in which the children of more or less wealthy\nparents learn their traditional virtues and vices. If we have also\nsome means by which able children whose talent has escaped the\nacademic eye (of which we have many classical instances) may in later\nyears have a chance of recognition, we shall exploit the intelligence\nof the race with splendid results.\n\nThe cost of this great reform need not intimidate us. Enormous sums of\nmoney have been given (by men like Mr. Carnegie) or bequeathed for the\npurpose, and the admirable practice will continue. But we need a\nsearching revision of educational endowments, foundations,\nscholarships, etc. There is strong reason to suspect that estates\nwhich are now of great value are not applied to the scholastic\npurposes for which they were intended, or are badly administered, or\nare used in giving gratuitous or cheap education to the children of\ncomfortable parents who secure favour or influence. A consolidation of\nall the endowments which had not in their origin an express sectarian\npurpose would provide a fund to which the State and municipal\nauthorities need add little. The scheme would bring some order into\nour chaos of schools and colleges, and, while the more snobbish\nestablishments would continue to preserve their pupils from the\nsociety of the children of tradesfolk, and would waste valuable\nresources on uncultivable minds, the youth of the nation generally, of\nboth sexes, would be developed to the full extent of its capacity.\nThese things have a monetary value. A distinguished historical writer\ntold me that, on sending his son to Sandhurst, he proposed that they\nshould study together the campaigns of Napoleon. The youth presently\ninformed him that the traditions of Sandhurst did not allow them to do\nserious work outside the general routine. A few years later we heard\nthe details of our South African War.\n\nIt will be a part of this increased efficiency to rid our secondary\nand higher schools of clerical domination. It is futile to say that\nthe clergyman must represent morals and religion in the school. His\nrecord as a moralist during fifteen hundred years does not recommend\nhis services. Even to-day public schools which retain the tradition of\nclerical masters are deplorable from the moral point of view. Some of\nthem are nurseries of a vice which, unless it be discontinued when the\nyouth goes out into the world, may bring on him one of the most\ndegrading sentences of our penal law. The clerical _method_ of\ncharacter-training--one admits, of course, great occasional\npersonalities--has little influence on these things. Public-school\nboys, and especially young men at our universities, know that every\nsyllable which the preacher addresses to them is disputed, and no\nother ground of right and healthy conduct is, as a rule, impressed on\nthem. Many will know that the grossest opinion of the clergy\nthemselves is current in our public schools and older universities,\nand is embodied in numbers of scurrilous stories. The position of the\nclergyman in our educational world is false. He is there for the same\nreason that the Bible is in the elementary school: in the interest of\nthe Churches. We have improved mental education enormously since it\nceased to be a monopoly of the clergy. Possibly we will make a similar\nimprovement in character-training; we can hardly do it with less\nsuccess than they have done.\n\n\n CHAPTER IX.\n THE EDUCATION OF THE ADULT\n\nIF it be granted that it is the interest and the duty of a nation to\ndevelop the intelligence of its people, we must conclude that the work\nis only half done, or not half done, by even an ideal system of what\nis commonly called education. I am assuming that a time will come when\nno youth or maiden will enter workshop or office before the age of\nseventeen, if not eighteen; and that the better endowed minority of\nour children will, without regard to their private resources, be\npromoted to secondary, technical, and higher schools. This minority\nwill, on the whole, need no further attention. Cultural interest and\nprofessional stimulation will ensure that their studies continue. But\nthe majority will fall lamentably short of the ideal of developed and\nalert intelligence. The added three or four years will be enormously\nvaluable to the teacher, but in the majority of cases the intellectual\ninterest will still be so feeble that the distractions of life will at\nonce extinguish it.\n\nIf we speak of our actual world, not of an ideal world, this fact is\ntoo patent to need proving. Forty-five years ago a band of enthusiasts\nfought for the establishment of universal elementary education. The\nsurvivors of that band confess that the splendid results they\nanticipated have not been secured. One is, indeed, tempted sometimes\nto wonder whether there was not more zeal for culture among the\nworkers half a century ago than there is to-day. When you listen to a\nconversation, of workers or of average middle-class people, on\npolitics or theology or some other absorbing topic, you are astounded\nat the slender amount of personal thinking and the slavery to phrases\nwhich they have heard. Their minds seem to resemble the screen of a\nkaleidoscope, on which the coloured phrases they have read in journals\nor cheap literature weave automatic patterns. I speak, of course, of\nthe mass. I have given hundreds of scientific lectures to keen\naudiences of working men, and I know that tens of thousands of them\nhave excellent collections of familiar books. But the result of\nforty-five years of education is far from satisfactory. It was thought\nthat, when the people learned to read, and the ideas of an Emerson or\na Darwin could be appropriated by any man of moderate endowment, the\nlevel of the race would rise materially. It has not risen as much as\nwas expected. The phrases are learned and repeated: the ideas are not\nvitally assimilated, because the intellect is not sufficiently\ndeveloped.\n\nTwo classes of people will impatiently retort that there is no need\nfor further development. One class consists of those who dread a\nhigher intelligence in the workers because it leads to discontent with\ntheir condition. To which one may reply that this concern comes too\nlate. One needs little intelligence to perceive the inequalities of\nthe distribution of wealth. The workers of the world have perceived\nit, and, although only an extreme Socialist minority demands\nequalisation, the mass of the workers demand a higher reward. Midway\nbetween Australia and England, on the deck of a liner, I heard a group\nof middle-class men and women contrasting the menace of the Australian\nworkers with the industrial content of the mother-country. We landed,\nto find from the journals that the whole United Kingdom was punctuated\nby strikes, agitations, and demands. It is too late. A distinguished\nBelgian prelate was taken into a large foundry, and, observing the\nworkers, he impulsively cried: \"What a slave's life!\" \"Hush,\nthey will hear you,\" said the manager. In repeating the experience\nhe added: \"They have heard: it is too late.\" It will be better now\nif, in the industrial struggle of the future, there is intelligence as\nwell as principle on both sides. If any large proportion of work in\nthe human economy requires the sacrifice of the intelligence, there is\nsomething wrong with the work.\n\nCuriously enough, the other class of people who are impatient of the\ndesign to stimulate their minds consists of the mass of the workers\nthemselves. After eight or nine or ten hours of heavy muscular work\nevery day, they say, they have no inclination or fitness for serious\nliterature, serious lectures, or serious art. They prefer a drink, a\nbioscope, a music-hall. Eight hours' work, eight hours' play,\neight hours' sleep; that is the ideal. A very natural and\nsymmetrical ideal, but--it is just the ideal which \"the\ncapitalist\" wishes them to cultivate, and this might suggest\nreflection. Someone will do the thinking while they play. Democratic\ngovernment is a mischief and a blunder unless Demos is capable of\nthinking. If the workers of the world have an ambition to control\ntheir destinies, they must realise that their destinies are things too\nlarge and complex and important to be controlled by men with sleepy\nbrains. There is no solution of the broad social problem of this\nplanet which does not imply that every adult man and woman, of normal\npowers, shall be alert and informed and self-assertive enough to take\nan intelligent part in its administration.\n\nTherefore, it seems to many that a scheme of education which ceases to\noperate at the age of fourteen, which teaches children to read and has\nno further concern with what they read, which impresses on their\ncortex a mass of facts of no utility or stimulation, is not a\nfulfilment of a nation's duty, or a proper consideration of a\nnation's interest. The grander lessons of history, the more\nimpressive truths of science, the vital features of economics and\nsociology, the ennobling characters of fine art, cannot be even\nfaintly impressed on the young mind. Yet they can be impressed on the\nminds of nearly all adults, and it would be an incalculable gain to\nthe race if they were. What is being done, and what might be done, to\neffect this?\n\nThe nation at present leaves it to commercial interest and to\nphilanthropy to carry out, in some measure, this important function,\nand we may at once eliminate the commercial interest. It supplies, at\na proper profit, what is demanded. A minority ask for cheap works of\nscience and art and history, and several admirable series of manuals\nand serial publications are supplied. A majority, an overwhelming\nmajority, asks only to be entertained, and there is a mighty flood of\nnovels and amusing works, a rich crop of music-halls and\nbioscope-shows and theatres and skating rinks. It will readily be\nunderstood that, regarding happiness as the ultimate ideal, I regard\nentertainment as a proper part of life. The comedian and the\nstory-teller and the professional football-player are rendering good\nservice, and it is intellectual snobbery to murmur that they \"merely\nentertain\" people. A good deal of nonsense is written about sport\nand entertainment. Many of us can, with pleasant ease, suspend a\nseverely intellectual task for a few hours to witness a first-class\nfootball match. One wonders if some of the ascetics who speak about\n\"mudded oafs\" and \"the football craze\" are aware that the game\n(except for professional players) occupies merely an hour and a half a\nweek (or alternate week) for little more than half a year.\n\nThe mischief is that so much of our entertainment appeals to and\nfosters a state of mind or taste which does exclude culture. We have\nto-day an army of puritan scouts, watching our music-halls and\ncinematograph films, our picture-cards and novels, our open spaces by\nnight and our bathing-beaches by day, calculating minutely what amount\nof dress or undress or sexual allusion they may permit. Certainly we\nneed coercion in these matters. No one who moves amongst our average\npeople, in any rank of society, can fail to recognise that there would\nbe in time a volcanic outpour of sexuality if we did not impose\nrestriction. Whether this chaste pruriency of the modern Churches is\nan admirable thing, and whether its hirelings are a desirable\nsupplement to the police-force, need not be discussed here; but what\namuses one is their intense zeal to detect the narrowest fringe of\nimpropriety and their utter obtuseness to graver matters. I have\nsometimes, when waiting before a lecture in the dressing-room of a\nvariety theatre, been confronted with a notice that \"the curtain\nwill be rung down on any artist who says 'Damn' or mentions the\nlodger,\" or, more candidly (in the Colonies): \"Don't swear. We\ndon't care a damn, but the public does.\" The general public would,\nif it were consulted, probably make the same reply as the framers of\nthe notice, and would blame the police for the restriction of liberty.\nThere is, in a word, an appalling poverty of taste in the general\npublic, and it pays the purveyor of entertainment to adapt his wares\nto it as far as the police will permit. To this lamentable lack of\ntaste and culture (in the broad sense) officials and moralists are\nentirely indifferent as long as the _com\u00e9dienne_ does not refer to\nthe seventh commandment. The public may be as ignorant and vulgar as\nthey like, but they must not give expression to a natural effect of\nthis.\n\nThe music-hall and the bioscope are the great academies of our people\nto-day, and their work is largely stupefying. Sentimental songs of the\nmost vapid description alternate with patriotic songs of a medieval\ncrudeness and humorous songs which might have appealed to a\nprehistoric intelligence. Bloodthirsty melodramas, sensational scenes,\nand infinite variations of \"The girl who did what we are forbidden\nto talk about,\" evoke and inflame elementary emotions at the lowest\ngrade of culture. Clergymen give certificates of high moral efficacy\nto crude representations of passion in high life which are designed to\nappeal to raw feelings. The posters alone--the eccentric costumes and\ndaubed faces and attempts at novelty in the way of leering--warn away\npeople of moderate taste or intelligence. The bioscope is almost as\nbad. Apart from a few excellent travel and scenic and scientific\npictures, the show is a mass of crude faking and boorish horse-play\nwhich presupposes an elementary intelligence in the spectators.\nPictorial post-cards add to the monstrosities and puerilities of this\nkind of public education, and a large proportion of the stories\npublished, especially in the periodicals which are read by girls and\nboys and uneducated women, fall in the same category. We may trust\nthat the idea will not occur to anyone of making a collection of our\npicture-cards, films, music-hall posters, novelties, etc., for\npreservation as typical amusements of the twentieth century.\n\nIt is stupid to watch this lamentable exposure of our low average of\nculture week by week with complete indifference until more\nunderclothing is displayed than we think proper. The bioscope and\nmusic-hall--I speak of the majority--are not merely entertaining; they\nare undoing the work of the educator. They are fostering the raw and\nprimitive emotions which it is the task of education to refine and\nbring under control, debasing public taste, and appealing to a\nstandard which is essentially unintellectual. The idea that fun may be\nutterly stupid and crude, provided it is \"clean,\" is the idea of a\nnarrow-minded fanatic, an enemy of society.\n\nWhen we pass to the next cultural level of entertainment--the better\nmusic-hall, the metropolitan type of theatre, the concert, the novel,\netc.--we have a vast provision of entertainment which amuses or\ninterests without cultural prejudice; rising at times to a positive\nmeasure of artistic education or intellectual stimulation. Two things\nonly need be noticed here. The first is the stupidity of the kind of\ncensorship which we tolerate; of which little need be said, since it\nis generally recognised. The amateur moral censorship of art reaches\nthe culmination of its absurdity in our dramatic inquisition. The\ndramatist may deal with sex-passion as pruriently and provokingly as\nhe likes, provided he leaves enough to the spectator's facile\nimagination; but he must not attempt to raise love as an intellectual\nissue. Our people may feel love: they must not think about it as a\nserious problem.\n\nThe other, and more needed observation, regards the novel. There are\nnovels of fine artistic value, like those of Phillpotts: novels of\ngreat intellectual use, like those of Wells: and novels of a general\nand more subtle educational value, like those of Meredith. There are\nnovels which, like the melodrama, counteract education by their low\nstandard of art and intelligence, and there are novels--the great\nmajority--which entertain without prejudice. Since we have as much\nright to be entertained as to be instructed, novel-reading is a normal\npart of a normal life. Seeing, however, that a very large proportion\nof the community read nothing but novels, it has been felt that the\nnovel might be used as a vehicle of instruction, and the didactic or\nhistorical novel has become an institution. Many believe that they are\nbeing educated when they read this literature.\n\nAgainst this comforting assumption it is necessary to protest. Even\nthe greatest historical novelists, Dumas and Scott, have taken\nremarkable liberties with the known facts, and added to the picture of\nthe time a mass of imaginative detail. Many historical novels, like\n_Quo Vadis_ or Kingsley's _Hypatia_, misrepresent personalities or\nperiods for controversial purposes; and the bulk of modern historical\nnovels are worthless jumbles of fact and imagination. It is, as a\nrule, the same with the sociological novel. You must know the facts in\nadvance--you must know where the facts end and the fiction begins--or\nelse merely regard the book as a form of entertainment. Lately I read\na serious historical work, by a distinguished writer, in which Hypatia\n(who was fifty or sixty years old when she was murdered) is described\nas a \"girl-philosopher\"; clearly because Kingsley, for controversial\npurposes, thought fit in his novel to make her a young and rather\nfoolish maiden. Thousands of people take their convictions from\n\"novels with a purpose,\" especially religious or sociological\nnovels, without reflecting that the author may legitimately give them\neither fact or fiction. Such novels are often profoundly mischievous.\nA conscientious didactic novelist like Mr. Wells aims rather at\nraising issues and stimulating reflection, and in this Mr. Wells has\ndone splendid service. Others have done equal disservice, and have\nused artificially constructed characters for the purpose of raising\nprejudice against certain ideas, or have misled by a calculated\nmixture of fact and fiction. It was in recommending to the public one\nof these novels--an exceptionally silly and crude piece of work--that\nthe Bishop of London described Christianity as \"woman's best\nfriend.\"\n\nReligious literature is particularly offensive in this respect, but I\nwill give special consideration to it later. Our press-criticism of\nbooks is a very imperfect system of checking the vagaries and\nprejudices of authors. The criticisms are very frequently marked by\nignorance of the subject and by personal or doctrinal hostility to the\nauthor, while the more learned and conscientious journals often show\nthe most ludicrous pedantry. I once published a novel, pseudonymously,\nand was amused to read in a London weekly, which takes great pride in\nthe smartness of its reviews, that the author had neither an\nelementary knowledge of the art of writing nor an elementary\nacquaintance with the subject on which he wrote. I had already at that\ntime written about twenty volumes, and I had had twelve years'\nintimate experience of the monastic life with which the book was\nconcerned. Mr. Clement Shorter, not knowing the author, had generously\ndescribed the book as \"a brilliant novel.\" On another occasion an\nhistorical work of mine was gravely censured, though no specific\nerrors were noted in it, by our leading literary organ, on the ground\nthat I was not an expert on the period. I looked up the same\njournal's critique of a work written on the same historical period\nby an academic authority, and published by his university, and I found\nthat, though there were dozens of errors in the work, it had passed\nthe censor with full honours. I add with pleasure that some of the\nmost generous notices of my works have appeared in papers (such as\n_The Daily Telegraph_ and _The Spectator_) to which my ideas must be\nrepugnant. But most literary men agree with me that reviewing is, to a\nlarge extent, prejudiced and incompetent, and few of us would cross a\nroom to read ordinary press-notices of our books.\n\nOne might extend this criticism to the general work of the press as\nthe great popular educator. We must, however, reflect that the press\nis hampered by restrictions which the public ought to bear in mind: a\njournal is always a commercial transaction with a particular section\nof the public, and it is generally pledged to political partisanship.\nIt is only just to remark that this materially restricts the\neducational ambition of many journalists. The public themselves are to\nblame that a large section of our press devotes so much space to\nsensational murders, adulteries, burglaries, royal births and\nmarriages, wars and other crimes and follies. Sunday journals often\ncontain twenty columns of this rubbish, and the worst parts of it are,\nwith the most disgusting hypocrisy, thrust into prominence by\nespecially large head-lines announcing \"A Painful Case.\" One\nimagines the working man spending five or six hours of the Sabbath\nreading this sort of stuff. Great and grave things, which he ought to\nknow, are happening all over the world, but he must have sharp eyes if\nhe is to catch the obscure little paragraphs which--if there is any\nreference at all--tell him how many have been put to death in Russia\nin the last quarter, or how the republican experiment fares in\nPortugal, or how democracy advances in Australia or the United States.\nThe space is needed for pictures of burned mansions and notorious\nmurderers and the commonplace relatives of politicians, for verbatim\nreports of divorce and criminal cases, for inquests and royal\nprocessions, and for the magnificent speeches of Cabinet Ministers and\nwould-be Cabinet Ministers.\n\nThis stricture applies to the press generally. How far it sacrifices\nto these meretricious purposes the serious function of educating the\npublic has been painfully impressed on us by recent experience. Only\none or two journals in England surpassed our drowsy politicians in\nsagacity and foresight. Though an extensive reader of German\nliterature (scientific and historical), it had never been my business\nto follow political or military utterances; yet, when the war broke\nout and I looked back on Germany's enormous output in this\ndepartment, I realised that there had been in London for a year or two\nenough German literature to convince any moderate observer that war\nwas fast approaching--and this was only a fragment of an enormously\nlarger literature. Our press had ridiculed the one or two men and\njournals who warned the public of the danger. Further, when it\ntranspired that our Government had met the crisis with painful\nslowness and inefficiency, nearly the whole press again conspired to\ncheck criticism, and it is probable that when the war is over the\npress will unite with the Churches in cultivating a foolish and\ndangerous contentment on the part of the public. Our press is, in\nfact, very largely an instrument of our corrupt party-system. It never\ninitiates reform, and it mirrors, day by day, all the crimes and\nfollies and maladies of our social order without the least resentment\nor the faintest suggestion of reconstruction. Journals are constantly\nappearing with the professed intention of correcting these defects,\nyet they are almost invariably spoiled by illiberalism in one or more\ndepartments of their work, or by gross exaggerations, hysterical\nlanguage, or impracticable proposals.\n\nAll this is a reflection of the generally low state of public culture,\nand it will not alter until we devote serious care to the education of\nthe general intelligence. We begin at school to cultivate the\nchild's imagination, though it is the quality of a child's mind\nwhich least requires stimulating and is most in need of subordinating\nto intelligence. In later years, when the feeble intellectual\nstimulation we have given is exhausted, we have to appeal to the\nimagination or go unheard. \"I have not read a book since I left\nschool,\" a music-hall artist observed to me. At twenty-five he had\nbecome incapable of doing more than look at illustrations, as he had\ndone in his childhood. We go on until we make the imagination itself\nfeeble on its constructive side. Miles of generally dauby and\ngrotesque posters line our streets; tons of the trashiest literature\nfor the young are discharged from marble palaces in the neighbourhood\nof Fleet Street; novels multiply until the general public takes the\nwords author and novelist to be synonymous; and the daily organ of the\nmillions tends more and more to be a collection of pictures of\nunimportant events and persons, with a very slender and peculiar\nquantity of news.\n\nIf we agree that democracy will advance until the majority rule in\nreality, and not merely in theory, these things must concern us. It is\nof little use to point to the occasional periodical with small\ncirculation which endeavours to educate, to the occasional educative\ncolumn in more important journals, or to the occasional lecture or\nserious concert or drama. The broad fact remains that our future\nrulers are increasingly encouraged to refrain from mental cultivation,\nto mistake an appeal to the imagination for knowledge, and to debase\ntheir taste more and more with raw representations of crime and\npassion. The working man reads with indignation of fashionable ladies\nstruggling to find a place in court when a man is being tried for a\nseries of sordid murders; and the working man then reads, day after\nday, a three-column verbatim report of the trial, and regrets that\nthere is not more of it.\n\nIn order to meet this grave public need an earlier generation invented\nnight-schools and Mechanics' Institutes. Many of these still do\nuseful work, but their number shrinks rather than increases. The\nCo-operative Movement, again, set up in the early days a fine ambition\nto educate its adult members, but this ambition has not been generally\nsustained in the vast modern movement. Hundreds of lecture-societies\nwere founded, and hundreds (about seven hundred in Great Britain, I\nbelieve) exist to-day and do some excellent work; but many of the\nsocieties which adhered most faithfully to the educational ideal are\nin difficulties or extinct. The travel-lecture or funny lecture and\nthe \"popular\" concert encroach more and more on the serious\nprogramme. Free libraries were another hope of the reformers of the\nlast generation, and they are now endowed by millionaires and\nmaintained by municipalities. They exhibit, perhaps, the saddest\nperversion of social ambition. Neither Mr. Carnegie nor any serious\nmunicipality thinks it a duty to provide gratuitous entertainment, but\nat least two-thirds of their resources are really devoted to this. The\nenormously greater part of the work of free libraries is to beguile\nthe idle hours of young men and the idle days of young women with\nnovels that rarely contain a particle of intellectual stimulation.\n\nPublic museums were another device for educating the mass of the\npeople, and they have largely failed. There has been in recent years a\nlittle more regard for the public, as well as for students, but it is\nstill painful to see crowds passing with bovine eyes amidst our\naccumulated treasures. The grouping and labelling are still too\nacademic: the general scheme and the immense wealth of detail daze the\neye of the inexpert. More guides and lecturers, in touch with and\ninformally accessible to the public, and a closer association with\nUniversity Extension and Gilchrist and other lectures, are very much\nneeded. Saturday afternoon in the British Museum is a melancholy\nspectacle of wasted wealth. A small model museum, designed solely for\nthe education of the general public, would be more useful in this\nrespect than our magnificent national museum. Unfortunately, the small\nmuseums copy the academic defects of the larger. The curator of one,\non whom I urged the needs of the public, replied wearily: \"Well, it\nwill take me three years to arrange my Cephalopods, and then I will\nsee what I can do.\"\n\nWe need a comprehensive and serious organisation and development of\nour resources for educating the adult. Our Education Department needs\nto throw out a new wing with the purpose of preventing the utter waste\nof its work upon young children. Institutions like the British Museum\nought to be relieved of the control of the Archbishop of Canterbury\nand one or two other somnolent gentlemen, and made the centre of a\nsplendid and energetic system of popular instruction and stimulation.\nFrom such centres the educational officials (as distinct from learned\ncurators and youths from Oxford and Cambridge who look upon the public\nas a nuisance) might issue attractive invitations and publications,\nand be prepared to welcome the non-student, either with \"showmen\"\nwho understand the public mind or by a general and affable\naccessibility of the whole staff. Municipal museums and libraries and\npicture-galleries could be organised on similar lines by the\nDepartment, and useful private foundations, such as the Bishopsgate\nInstitute, could be invited to co-operate, without interference in\ntheir management. The supply of novels ought to be restricted to the\ngreat masters of every country and a few moderns. The rich supply of\nserious literature ought to be made attractive and easily accessible\nto the public by good bibliographical guidance and constant lectures.\nThese things are, of course, being done. It is not so much the local\nofficials one quarrels with as the nation and its leaders. We want an\nimmense co-ordination and development of our resources and efforts out\nof national funds. Lecture-societies and all kinds of educative\ncentres and institutes--there are thousands in the country--need to be\naffiliated, encouraged, advised, and supplemented. The State should\nnot even shrink from publishing. The trade supplies only the actual\ndemand: the State must create a new and larger demand. Music would be\nan integral part of this scheme of education, and here again we have a\nlarge material ready for organisation.\n\nAny man who has engaged in the work of educating and stimulating the\ngeneral public will realise how urgently some such scheme is needed,\nand how splendid a service it would render. He will realise also that\nthe task will be formidable. I do not for a moment conceive the\ngeneral public as thirsting for culture. That is very largely due to\nthe way in which the work has hitherto been done. The recent success\nof small but authoritative manuals of science and history, and of\nseveral cheap series of literary works of high value, shows that a\nfairly large public responds to every enlightened effort to assist\nthem. It will become very much larger when the work is organised on a\nnational scale and conceived as a really important function of the\nState. That even then the majority of the nation would rush to the\nreconstructed libraries and museums and lecture or concert-halls no\none will imagine for a moment. We do not undo in a few years the\neffect of centuries of evil traditions. I am assuming, however, that\nthese various reforms I am discussing will proceed more or less\nsimultaneously, and will enormously assist each other. The abolition\nof war would release rich funds for educational purposes: the\nreorganisation of industry would provide a little more leisure and\ncapacity for mental recreation: other reforms would give a general\nintellectual stimulation. Even now, however, much of this work could\nbe done. If we think it sufficient that our people remain in a\ncondition of elementary literacy and half-developed intelligence, if\nwe fancy that the _race_ will advance because it sets aside a special\ncaste of scholars for the promotion of culture, we may regard our\nactual situation without concern. But if we desire that general\nalertness of mind and decision of character which a democratic rule\nimplies, we cannot be indifferent. Aristocrats justly rail at the\ndemocracy of Athens and Rome; it was an uneducated democracy--literate,\nbut uneducated, like ours. We need to advance, if we are not to\nrecede; and the uplifted race of the days to come will honour the\ngeneration that taught men the compatibility of culture and\nentertainment.\n\nI am speaking, in the main, of the mass of the workers, but it would\nbe entirely unjust to insinuate that they alone need adult education.\nThe conventions of social life, the extraordinary slavery to fashions\nand artificial rules, betray an intellectual flabbiness in the\nwealthier members of society which just as urgently calls for\nstimulation. We seem at times quite incapable of drawing a line\nbetween acts of real courtesy and taste, which imply a certain grace\nor delicacy of character, and conventional usages which have no\nrational basis. The insistence on these conventional usages is part of\nthat general slavery to false traditions which I am assailing.\n\nThe most flagrant instance of this weakness of mind and character is\nthe docility with which we meet changes of fashion in dress, or retain\neccentric forms of clothing. Hardly any other feature so strongly\nimpresses the close observer with the fact that the race, as a whole\n(and I speak only of civilised communities), advances little in\nintelligence and self-possession in spite of the progress made by its\nintellectual experts. One would say that here, especially, we need a\nstrong draught of the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche,--the gospel\nof self-assertion, of strong personality, of severe reasoning,--but I\nhave not observed that our modern Nietzscheans differ much from their\nneighbours in such matters. Yet the commercial expansion of modern\ntimes is making this tyranny of fashion more ludicrous than it ever\nwas before.\n\nThe fashion-plates and descriptions contained in ladies' journals\nhave always provoked the furtive smile of the male. A coterie of\ntradesmen, who are eager to promote business, and of wealthy ladies\nwho are equally eager to show that their purses are unlimited, decree\nthat the hat or costume shall continually vary in shape and colour.\nThe Anglo-French jargon of the sartorial journalist then impresses on\na larger circle of ladies the need of alertness and the horror of\nbeing _d\u00e9mod\u00e9e_,--it would be proof of incapacity to say \"out of\nfashion,\"--and, as the season approaches, the proclamation of the\nforthcoming colour or model is awaited with more feverish anxiety than\nthe announcement of the national budget. Schools of artists are\nsecretly inventing some variation--the wider the variation the\nbetter--on the thousands of costumes which have already graced the\nfeminine frame, or discussing bold suggestions of reviving an ancient\nmodel which has long disappeared even from the shops of\nwardrobe-dealers. Privileged ladies rise in prestige by obtaining and\nwhispering advance information. At length the shop-windows blaze with\nthe new colour, the journals depict an ingenious new combination of\nedges and folds and puckers, and womanhood plunges to the bottom of\nits purse with an eagerness to avoid the suspicion of financial\nstringency; while the discarded hats and dresses percolate\nromantically through lower strata of society. Is it not good for\ntrade?\n\nThe masculine smile is, however, wearing thinner, as the absurd\ndespotism is now almost as great among the stronger sex. Here also a\ngroup of commercial mathematicians evolve, every few months, a new\ncombination of brim and crown and curve, and artists design new\npatterns of cloth and new contours of garment, and tyrannical\njournalists hold up to public execration the man of means or position\nwho dares to find last year's fashion sufficiently comfortable or\ndecorative. \"Not worn now, sir,\" says the shopman, with indulgent\nsmile, when you go to renew the hat or coat that has pleased you. The\nbewildering thing is, not that manufacturers should be eager to sell\nus new garments every few weeks, but that we bow with such docility to\nthis ludicrous fiction of monarchy. Long trousers or short trousers,\ncreased trousers or turned-up trousers, tight coats or loose coats,\nbowlers or trilbys--we listen submissively to the mandate, without the\nleast consideration of our appearance or convenience.\n\nIndeed, the only things that are permanent in this extravagant\nprocession of fashions are the things that are ugly, inconvenient, or\nunhealthy, especially on the masculine side. The silk hat and the hard\nfelt hat linger as if in these extraordinary creations the\nmanufacturer had discovered the ideal head-covering. The swallow-tail\ncoat survives as if \u00e6sthetics could advance no further in the\nattiring of wealthy men; even the buttons at the back, to which our\nfiery ancestor attached his sword, must not be abandoned. The more\ncomfortable dinner-jacket remains a privileged client at the gate\nuntil some audacious peer or prince will dispel the oppressive\nreverence for the ancient swallow-tail; and peers and princes know how\ndangerous it is to tamper with the spirit of reverence. The starched\ncollar and shirt are as rigidly prescribed as sacred vestments on high\noccasions. The lady must still hang a thick and heavy screen of cloth\nfrom her hips; first having it made too long and then holding it up\nwith her hand in order to escape the rich organic deposit on our\nstreets and the filth with which we suffer \"domestic pets\" to make\nour squares hideous. Her abdominal organs must, if one may credit the\nmarvellous photographs published by the corset-makers, be\nreconstructed every few years to accommodate the latest scheme of\nbody-curves. And from these upper reaches of our intellectual world,\nthe tyranny descends through level after level of the community until\nit lays its last stern injunctions on the junior clerk and the\npost-office assistant; or passes beyond the seas and compels the\nChinaman or the Japanese to discard his beautiful robe in favour of a\nfrock-coat and silk hat, or a striped tweed and bowler, when he\npresents himself at the entrance-gate to civilisation.\n\nWe find an almost equally ludicrous tyranny of tradition or fashion in\nalmost every part of the ritual of social life. Twenty years ago I\nissued from a rite-bound monastery into the free life of the world, to\nfind it similarly swathed in ritual bonds. I purchased, and stealthily\nmastered, the \"ceremonial\" (as we used to call our rite-book) of\nthis new world--a book on \"etiquette\"--and led for some months a\nstrenuous and exacting life. I entered drawing-rooms with a nervous\nrecollection of about a score of rules that had to be observed in the\nfirst five minutes, while the ritual of the mundane table entailed for\na long time a good deal of furtive observation of my fellows and\ntrembling under the butler's eye. To this day I am not quite clear\nat what precise angle the elbow must stand in shaking hands. Social\nlife is overspread by a network of these prescriptions of the\nunwritten law or the judicial decisions of the aristocracy which we\ncall \"manners.\" There is, as a rule, so little discrimination\nbetween the formal rules of an artificial code and the real impulses\nof a gentlemanly nature that one has often to listen gravely and\nsilently while ladies commend the \"perfect manners\" of a man whom\none knows to be an adventurous ninny or a beast.\n\nWe need a new conception of civilisation, a sustained stimulation of\nthe intelligence throughout life, a strong infusion of the Nietzschean\ngospel of personality and self-assertion. Some day we shall regard\neducation as half of the nation's serious business, and will devote\nhalf our national revenue to it. Let it not be imagined that this\nsuggests a generation of dour and frightfully serious people who never\nsmoke or play bridge. I omit the function of entertainment only\nbecause it has never been neglected. The supreme business of a State\nis to make its people happy, strong, and prosperous. We shall approach\nthe ideal when we abolish war and reduce pauperism and crime by\nregistering all workers, organising all industry, reforming justice\nand the penal system, and removing the morally diseased.\n\nIn those days education will be a vast, humane, scientific scheme for\nguiding the growth of human embryos into industrious and orderly\ncitizens, and enabling the adult citizen pleasurably to cultivate his\nmind and taste. The development of each child will be followed as the\ndevelopment of a pupil is followed in the Jesuit Society, but with a\ncare to develop its individuality fully, in harmony with the\nindividualities of others. The child will not pass from the sphere of\nthe educator at puberty, with unformed mind and character, to swell\nthe great army of the intellectually listless. Ruskin's noble ideal\nof \"as many as possible full-breathed, bright-eyed, and\nhappy-hearted human creatures\" will replace the narrow standards of\nour Education Department, with which the child can have no sympathy.\nFrom the first dawn of intelligence it will feel that a well-wishing\nparent, the community, is training it to derive all the joy it can\nfrom life, consistently with the joy of others and the day's duties,\nwhen its turn comes to don the _toga virilis_. It will have learned by\nthat time that a development of its characteristic human powers is the\nrichest possession it can have, and, coming to adolescence, will not\nat once cast aside the work of the teacher and dissipate its energy in\nthe crude indulgence of elementary passions and futile imaginings.\nNeither child nor adult will shrink from work which stimulates the\nintelligence or refines the taste, and a fine alert race, impatient of\nuntruth, injustice, and suffering, will set itself to develop fully\nthe resources of this planet.\n\n\n CHAPTER X.\n THE CLERICAL SHAM\n\nTHROUGHOUT the preceding chapters there have been resentful or\ndisdainful references to the Churches, and it may be suspected that,\nin assailing other people's prejudices, I have cherished and\nproceeded upon the anti-clerical prejudice. A very cursory examination\nwill, however, suffice to show that these criticisms were sound and\npertinent, and are not due to some mysterious antipathy to the\nprofession to which I once belonged. Few of those ugly or mischievous\ntraditions which form what I have called the smothering ash in the\nintellectual activity of the nation have not the general support of\nthe clergy. Few of the reforms here suggested do not meet their\nhostility. They constitute one of the most injurious conservative\nforces in modern life. Their bodies are strewn over the whole\nbattlefield of the nineteenth century, and not one in a thousand of\nthem fought on the side of progress. The esteem in which they are\nstill widely held and the pretexts by which they guard this esteem are\nthe last, and by no means the least, of those shams which hamper our\nadvance and distract our energy.\n\nA full and detailed indictment of the clergy would fill several\ncolumns, and I must confine myself here to two or three considerations\nwhich are at once sufficiently drastic and easily demonstrable. I will\ntherefore be content to show:\n\n1. That the clergy claim and receive a large measure of public\nconfidence on the ground that they are the guardians of the most\nsacred and beneficent truths, yet impose on the less educated masses\na preposterous collection of untruths, or statements which many of\ntheir own scholars, and most lay scholars, regard as untrue.\n\n2. That the clergy pose as the most sensitive and effective custodians\nof our morals, yet their procedure is unjust, spiteful, and deceptive\nto an extent which would not be tolerated in any lay profession.\n\n3. That the clergy represent that their creed civilised Europe and is\nnecessary for the maintenance of its civilisation, yet their influence\nand their ideas retarded the evolution of European civilisation for\ncenturies, and retard it to-day wherever they have sufficient power or\nare immune from weighty criticism.\n\nIn enumerating the untruths which are still imposed by the clergy, I\nwill not linger over the Old Testament. When you censure them to-day\nfor attaching a sacred value to this collection of ancient Jewish\nliterature, they are apt to reply that your criticism is forty years\nout of date. Every educated clergyman, they exclaim, now acknowledges\nthat the Old Testament is a mixture of Babylonian legends, primitive\ntribal traditions, and moral literature of a na\u00efve and very\ninteresting description. Whether this statement is true or no I must\nleave to the judgment of those who have a closer acquaintance with the\nmodern clergy. Only two years ago I was persuaded, in an idle hour on\na liner, to listen to a sermon delivered by a young clergyman who had\njust issued, with honours, from a highly modern Wesleyan college. It\nwas on the miracles of Moses in the wilderness--ingeniously relieved\nby references to such other miracles as the appearance of a cross to\nConstantine--and accepted them as literally as did Peter the Hermit.\nReligious periodicals and books and parish-magazines suggest that\nthere is a good deal still of this medieval credulity; or that, at\nleast, the number of \"educated clergymen\" must be somewhat\nrestricted. But let us accept the assurance that the educated clergy\ndo accept the Old Testament at its true historical value. In which\ncase we must be content to express our surprise that no clergyman\nseems to have the least scruple about imposing these things on young\nchildren, and rustic congregations, and less cultivated races--than\nwhich there is no more cowardly form of untruth: and that some of the\nmost notoriously unreliable and barbaric pages of the Old Testament\nare read, Sunday by Sunday, as \"the word of God\" in all the\nChristian Churches of the world, under the official orders of every\necclesiastical authority in the world.\n\nHowever, since these cultivated ecclesiastics smile at our criticism\nof the Old Testament, and see nothing improper in a deception of the\nignorant, of which any body of professional laymen would be incapable,\nlet us turn to the New Testament. It is always useful to consider the\nattitude of the clergy in its historical perspective. A hundred years\nago they were defending against the Deists the absolute truthfulness\nof the Old Testament. Christ had promised the Holy Spirit to the\nChurch: the Holy Spirit could not possibly tolerate untruth: therefore\nthe teaching of the Church for sixteen centuries must be right. Within\ntwo generations they have, in a great number, abandoned the inerrancy\nof the Old Testament, without abandoning the Holy Spirit. It seems\nonly the other day when Cardinal Newman pleaded wistfully that we were\nnot compelled, under pain of eternal damnation, to believe that\nTobit's dog did really wag its tail. However, outside Scotland\nclergymen do seem to be free to form their own opinions on such\nallegations as that a whale swallowed a man and housed him for three\ndays. But in thus admitting that \"inspiration\" was consistent with\nerror, they have put the New Testament also in the hand of the critic.\n\nIt is well to remember, too, that this modern criticism of the Bible\nis conducted almost entirely by divines. The average churchgoer has an\nimpression that these terrible people who are known as \"the Higher\nCritics\" are anti-clerical laymen: possibly lascivious gentlemen\nwhose real ambition is to undermine the salutary discipline imposed by\nthe Churches. They are, of course, on the contrary, nearly all\nordained clergymen, and very conscientious clergymen, of some branch\nof the Church. Rationalists never criticise the Bible. It has become a\nbranch of theological scholarship. I once--having been challenged by\nthe local clergyman, who promptly disappeared when I arrived--gave a\nlecture on the divinity of Christ to an audience of Presbyterian\nartisans, and assured them that the views and arguments I put before\nthem were taken solely from the works of distinguished and highly\nhonoured theologians. Their amazement and horror were most amusing.\nThey had not the dimmest idea that controversy on these points lay\nmerely between advanced and not-advanced members of the Christian\nclergy; and that their local oracle had, in effect, merely been\nimposing on them the opinions of the less learned divines in\nopposition to the more learned.\n\nAnd this fact dispenses me from the need to drag the reader into the\nsomewhat tiring labyrinth of proof and disproof which these warring\ntheologians have constructed. Nothing could be further from my mind\nthan the presumptuous and immodest wish to brand the clergy as\ndishonest, and their beliefs as superstitious, because I happen to\nregard those beliefs as false. Let the position be clearly understood.\nA study of the _Hibbert Journal_ or any scholarly theological\nperiodical, or of any batch of learned theological works, will apprise\nany person that what are ordinarily conceived to be the fundamental\npositions of the Christian religion are challenged by a large\nproportion of distinguished divines. Pleas of \"reconstruction\" are\nconstantly put before us; and at the Church of England Congress in\n1912 it was plainly decided by the presiding Archbishop of York that\nthe \"advanced\" theologians had a legitimate place in the Church.\nIt is not a question of a few controverted points in the scheme of\nChristian doctrine. No point that is specifically Christian is left\nunchallenged. The divinity and miracles--especially the miraculous\nbirth and resurrection--of Christ, the prophecies, the doctrine of\nheaven and hell, the divine guidance of the Church, the fall and\nredemption of man--all these characteristic doctrines are gravely\ndisputed within the frontiers of the Churches themselves, wherever\nfreedom of expression is permitted.\n\nOne would prefer to rely on theologians only in such a matter, but for\nmy purpose it is not immaterial to add that outside the ranks of the\nclergy scholarship is overwhelmingly against these doctrines. There\nhas been a good deal of unsubstantial talk about the beliefs of living\nmen of intellectual eminence, but resolute efforts have been made of\nlate years to wring from them a profession of Christian belief, and\nthe result has been so meagre that my statement is fully justified. A\nlarge number declare that they are on the side of \"religion.\" But\none has only to reflect that even Sir Oliver Lodge warmly professes to\nbe a Christian--and is, in fact, welcomed to read the lessons in\nchurch--to see how little is conveyed by such expressions. The supreme\neffort of the Churches to secure adhesions of this kind is probably\nfound in Mr. Tabrum's _Religious Beliefs of Scientists_ (1910), and\na study of that extraordinary jumble of the living and the dead, the\ndistinguished and the obscure, the really believing Christians and the\nmen who are notoriously not, will convince any person of the failure\nof the Churches to obtain the literal adhesion of even a respectable\nproportion of our distinguished men: not men of science merely--it is\na stupid error to suppose that the decay of faith is more or less\nconfined to them--but men of eminence in any department of research or\nintellectual life. Not one in ten of them, in any educated country of\nthe Christian world to-day, has ever professed a belief in the\ndoctrines or statements I have enumerated; and vague professions of a\nregard for religion do not concern me here.\n\nNow I am, as I said, not passing any personal opinion on these\nChristian teachings: I am merely drawing attention to their position\nin modern life. The uncultivated masses and the body of the clergy who\npreach to these masses accept the miraculous birth, death,\nresurrection, and all the rest, quite implicitly. Here and there one\nfinds a preacher who dissents; I am speaking of the mass. At the\nmiddle level of mental culture, among both clergy and laity, dissent\nbecomes much more frequent. At the highest level of theological\nscholarship it would be fair to say that the dissenters are almost, if\nnot quite, as numerous as the believers; and at the higher level of\nlay culture, where opinions may be more freely formed and expressed,\nthe dissenters are the overwhelming majority. These men may be theists\nor agnostics or Christians in the broader sense of the word, but the\ngreat majority of them do not believe in these distinctively Christian\ndoctrines. Yet the Churches, wherever they are not kept in check by\nthis critical element, invest these doctrines with the most sacred and\nconfident character: stamp them as unquestioned truths on the minds of\nchildren and uneducated people, and put them forward as their official\nand authoritative doctrines. Nay, there is hardly a theologian in any\nchurch who does not, when Christmas and Easter annually occur, lend\nhis official and most solemn countenance to these discarded or\ndisputed traditions.\n\nThis would not, could not, be done in any branch of lay culture. One\nmay justly insist on one's opinion in any disputed theme, but what\nwould be the attitude of our leaders of culture if any authoritative\nhistorian, philosopher, or scientist attempted to impose on the\ninexpert, as an unquestioned truth, some older opinion which a large\nproportion of the expert regarded as false or questionable? What would\nthey say to a responsible teacher in one of these branches of lay\nculture who read certain statements to those who trusted him, and said\nwithin his own mind: \"This is what people thought a thousand years\nago\"? A clergyman told me that it was with this mental reservation\nthat he read the creeds and gospels on Sundays. What would a\nphilosopher, or historian, or scientist say, if his department of\nculture were an organic association with a public and authoritative\nteaching, and this public teaching contained statements which a large\nproportion of the leading representatives regarded as false? And what\nwould he say to any colleagues who urged him to allow these things to\nstand because a change might lessen the respect of the general public\nfor their authority?\n\nThis situation reflects gravely on the character of Christian\nministers. One need not attempt the futile task of estimating what\nproportion of the clergy believe the things they teach, but we are\nconstantly receiving proof, especially posthumous proof, that large\nnumbers of them do not. I have been severely rebuked for suggesting\nsuch a thing, but when I find a group of young Oxford divines saying\nplumply, in an important recent work (_Foundations_), that Christian\ntheology is \"out of harmony with science, philosophy, and\nscholarship,\" I can only say that I trust a sufficient number of the\nclergy are educated enough to know it. The majority of the clergy are,\nhowever, sufficiently ignorant of \"science, philosophy, and\nscholarship\" to be in good faith, and one ought not to press the\nindictment in this sense. At sea I listen occasionally, from some safe\ndistance, to sermons, and am amazed that even a fair proportion of the\npassengers can sit with grave faces during the delivery of such empty\nand ignorant vapourings. One reflects that all over the Christian\nworld priests are similarly dogmatising on the most profound problems\nof life, and not one in a thousand of them has an elementary knowledge\nof those branches of modern research which a public guide ought to\ncommand. It is not the decay, but the survival, of churchgoing that\nperplexes one.\n\nThere is, however, another aspect of the matter which requires serious\nattention. There have been, from the earliest ages of the Christian\nChurch, men of superior intelligence and independent character who\nrefused to submit to the dictation of the clergy. There is no need to\nrecall how the clergy dealt with them. Christian ministers have in\nthis regard the most abominable record in the whole history of\ncivilised religion. Some day it will be put side by side with that of\nthe priests of Saturn or of Quetzalcotl, who offered human sacrifices.\nAll that need be noted here is the effrontery with which modern\nclerical writers defend their predecessors. If the principles on which\nthey base their defence are valid, they would again be compelled to\nburn heretics if they obtained power. The Church of Rome is bold\nenough to acknowledge this. Huxley tells how his distinguished\nCatholic friend, Dr. J. Ward, warmly assented to this, but we have had\nsince then a more authoritative indication. A work of Canon Law which\nwas published at Rome under the \"enlightened\" rule of Leo XIII.,\nand with his emphatic personal approval--the _Institutiones Juris\nCanonici_ of Father de Luca--proves at length the duty of the Church\nto put to death heretics.\n\nHowever, we will not waste rhetoric over the past or over an\nimpossible future. What policy have the modern clergy, who are unable\nto induce the State to burn dissenters, substituted for that of their\npredecessors? A policy that is, to a very great extent, unjust,\nspiteful, and dishonourable: a policy that, in the very name of truth,\nis marked by a more flagrant indifference to truth than you will find\nin any other reputable department of modern life.\n\nThe first feature of this policy will be seen by any generally\ninformed person who will take the trouble to read a batch of religious\nworks or periodicals. He will find numbers of statements of the most\namazing inaccuracy. It is, no doubt, an exceptional thing for a\nclerical writer to make a statement which is, to his conscious\nknowledge, untrue. The very suggestion seems prejudiced, but is there\na vast difference between imposing official untruths on ignorant\ncongregations and supporting these untruths by others? The constant\nrepetition of these ancient and discredited formul\u00e6 does not induce a\nvery punctilious temper in regard to truth. If it is quite lawful to\nrepeat from the Old or the New Testament historical statements which\nare not true or are gravely disputed, why not other historical\nstatements which have got into ecclesiastical currency?\n\nUsually, however, the attitude of the writer seems to be one of\nculpable indifference to the truth or untruth of the statements he\nmakes. He finds in some previous writer a statement which supports his\ncase, and he reproduces it without inquiry. If he were a mere layman,\nengaged in some branch of profane culture, he would not dare to\nrepeat, without further inquiry, statements which he found made in his\nown sectarian interest by men of no high authority or original\nscholarship. The clergy, however, do this habitually, and one is\ncompelled to conclude that they are more or less indifferent about the\ntruth of their assertions, if those assertions are favourable to\nreligion. Just as I write the press reports Dr. R. F. Horton telling\na congregation that a British regiment was saved at Mons by the\nappearance of a legion of angels, and assuring his audience that this\nsilly myth is \"repeated by so many witnesses that if anything can be\nestablished by contemporary evidence it is established.\" The story\nhas gone the round of our pulpits and religious press.\n\nI am speaking, however, from a particularly wide experience of\nreligious literature. For thirty years--ten years as a clerical\nstudent or professor, and twenty years as an interested observer of\nreligious controversy--I have devoted much time to books and journals\nof this kind, and I repeat that there is no other branch of literature\nso flagrantly inaccurate and unscrupulous. A religious periodical\n(_The Christian World_, 20th August 1903), in the course of an\neditorial on \"Candour in the Pulpit\" (meaning lack of candour in\nthe pulpit), said: \"A foremost modern theologian, by no means of the\nradical school, has recorded his significant judgment that one of the\nmain characteristics of apologetic literature is its lack of honesty;\nand no one who has studied theology can doubt that it has suffered\nmore than any other science from equivocal phraseology.\" When a\njournal which has to consult the feelings of a large backward\nclientele uses this language, we may conclude that the situation is\nreally bad. In fact, not even political journalism betrays such gross\ncarelessness as to the truth of the statements with which it assails\nits opponents. \"The more sacred our ideas are, the more savagely we\nfight for them,\" said Mr. Chesterton, defending the Inquisition. Mr.\nChesterton's own genial method (except that one recognises the taint\nin his _Victorian Age in Literature_) disproves his aphorism. There is\nnot the slightest excuse for the gross procedure of religious writers.\n\nI have in various works and articles given hundreds of examples of\nthis procedure, and will be content to deal summarily with two of the\nchief types of misrepresentation--those relating to history and those\nrelating to science. The classical examples in history are the\nclerical legends about the morality of the pagans. Here the clerical\nlie goes on its way from age to age without the slightest regard of\nthe progress of historical research. Discoveries in the ruins (such as\nthe Hammurabi Code, temple-literature, etc.) and a closer scrutiny of\nthe sources used by the Greek historian Herodotus have made it quite\nclear that the old Mesopotamian civilisations were comparable to ours\nin moral sentiment and practice. Instead of women having to sacrifice\ntheir virginity in the temples at Babylon, we have abundant evidence\nthat chastity was demanded and valued in brides, and that the priests\ninsisted on purity. Every other moral sentiment was equally developed.\nWe find the same high moral development in Egypt. All this is\ndisregarded, and the superiority of the Hebrew and Christian sacred\nbooks is maintained by a resolute propagation of ancient fables.\n\nIn regard to Greece and Rome the practice is even worse. The\nexceptional features of their life are described as normal and general\nfeatures, and the very abundant literature which has put in its true\nlight the character of Athens and Rome is completely ignored. Special\nperiods of vice under bad emperors (who, in the aggregate, ruled only\nseventy years out of three hundred and twenty) are spread over the\nwhole of Roman history. The gossip and democratic rhetoric of Juvenal\nare pressed literally, in spite of the judgment of all serious\nhistorians. The works which exhibit the better side of Rome, and the\ninscriptions which show a very high degree of character and\nhumanitarianism under the Stoics, are wholly suppressed. The balanced\nverdict of modern historians is scandalously flouted. At all costs it\nmust be shown that Europe needed regeneration, and that Christian\nmorality was far superior to pagan; and so the clergy continue, in\nspite of protests from some of their own lay scholars (Emil Reich, for\ninstance), to draw a flagrantly untruthful picture of the morals of\nGreece and Rome.\n\nBut this misrepresentation is venial in comparison with the\nmisrepresentation of later European history. The clerical story of the\nmoral change that came over Europe when it embraced Christianity is\none of the grossest impostures ever laid on the human mind. Even\nclerics like Dean Milman sufficiently refuted it decades ago, but it\nflourishes as profitably as ever. From the pulpit of St. Paul's to\nthe tin chapels of Mudville it is one of the most treasured\ntraditions, and perhaps no picture is more familiar to Christian\naudiences than that of Rome, drunk with its vices, reeling to the foot\nof the cross and embracing sobriety. It is a calculated clerical myth\nin every line. The Stoics reformed Rome at a time when the Christians\nwere a mere handful of obscure people, and the magnificent work done\nand institutions set up by the Stoics were not sustained by the\nChurch. Even in regard to the persecutions the clergy still repeat the\nlegend which modern historians recognise as based on a mass of\nmedieval forgeries. Civilisation sank rapidly until it touched the\ndepth of the early Middle Ages, and, as Milman candidly recognised,\nthe claim that at least virtue increased is the reverse of the truth.\nThe Church did not denounce or abolish slavery: it discouraged\neducation: it abased woman: it set back a thousand years the\ndevelopment of culture. Yet our clerical writers repeat the medieval\nfalsehoods as fluently as if modern history did not exist.\n\nThe later period is just as grossly falsified by Catholic writers, but\nhere the Protestant--who has somehow convinced himself that the Holy\nSpirit abandoned Europe to the devil for a thousand years--begins to\ncry for candour. Much of the Protestant literature is uncritical and\nunscrupulous in its use of authorities; it is, however, instructive in\ncomparison with the kind of history purveyed by the \"Catholic Truth\nSociety.\" There is hardly a candid historian in the Church, even in\nGermany and the United States. The latest historian of the Papacy, Dr.\nL. Pastor, is certainly entitled to respect for his effort, though\neven he does not present all the facts; while men like Cardinal\nGasquet are appallingly one-sided. I am, however, thinking mainly of\nthe \"popular\" literature, on which no stricture could be too\nsevere. Indeed, when it comes to the modern period, both Protestant\nand Catholic literature is scandalous. One often finds Voltaire,\nRousseau, and Paine described as \"atheists,\" and the most slovenly\nobservations on the Revolution. Roosevelt's description of Paine as\na \"dirty little atheist\" is a good indication of the kind of\nliterature that even an educated religious man may read.\n\nOn the scientific side the inaccuracy and carelessness are just as\ngreat, but the field is too vast for consideration here. The conflict\nin regard to evolution has produced an extraordinary literature on the\nclerical side, and, to the amusement of students of science, it still\nflows from the religious press and refreshes suburban faith. Men who\nhave never devoted a month to the study of science engage in conflict\nwith the most authoritative masters of biology, and thrill their\nignorant followers with the vigour and dexterity of their fencing.\nThese Jesuit and other writers have, of course, set up a lay-figure\nfor their valiant attacks. They misrepresent the views and motives of\nthe man they oppose, give garbled quotations from his works, and\nsupport their own antiquated positions by quotations from scientific\nmen who lived in the earlier phases of the controversy. No trick is\nmore common in this class of literature than to justify obsolete\nstatements by quoting \"authorities\" who died long ago, and leaving\nthe inexpert reader to suppose that they are modern men of science;\nwhile clerics who could not distinguish a pal\u00e6olithic from a\ncivilised skull write pompous essays on such subjects as the evolution\nof man. Works of this kind circulate by the hundred in the churches\neven to-day, literally deluding millions of people, while the works of\nmore expert writers are denounced as \"against religion\" and unfit\nto read.\n\nStill more flagrant is the clerical behaviour in rebutting the general\nbelief that men of science have for the most part abandoned\nChristianity. They--with the support of a man like Sir O. Lodge--talk\nglibly of the death of \"Victorian materialism\" and the rebirth of\nspiritualism; whereas Huxley, Tyndall, Spencer, Darwin, Clifford,\nLewes, and every other Victorian man of science repudiated\nmaterialism. When you ask who the modern men are who have abandoned\nthe views of the Huxleian generation and come to favour religion, they\nproduce an extraordinarily confused list of names. I have referred to\ntheir _magnum opus_ in this department, Tabrum's _Religious Beliefs\nof Scientists_. It actually includes two prominent members of the\nRationalist Press Association; while men like Lodge and Wallace and\nCrookes are included among the more orthodox. Of late years it is the\nfashion to impress ignorant congregations with the names of W. James,\nEucken, and Bergson; whereas James and Bergson are not even theists,\nand Eucken professes a form of theism which any Church would heatedly\nrepudiate. The members of the various sects are literally and most\nscandalously duped on this point.\n\nI have claimed that the clergy are spiteful and unjust, as well as\ncareless about truth. There are very few popular religious writers who\nseem capable of giving a correct account of the views they are\ncriticising, and there are very many who manipulate quotations with\nthe effect of grossly deceiving their readers. Worse still, the clergy\nhabitually slander their critics, and these slanders live for years in\nspite of refutation. Seven years ago they began to circulate a silly\nand obviously incredible charge that Professor Haeckel \"forged\"\nillustrations in support of his case, and, though the libel was at\nonce thoroughly refuted by Professor Schmidt, it is still current.\nOnly a few months ago I received from India documents which showed\nthat the Jesuits there were still insisting on it. A friend of mine\ninformed me that he heard one Scottish preacher, in the course of a\npublic lecture on Haeckel, assure his audience, on the authority of a\n\"friend of Haeckel's,\" that that venerable scientist was a man\nof most licentious life! No charge is too gross to repeat, if it\ndiscredits an \"enemy of the faith.\" Dozens of times I have heard\nof the wildest calumnies about myself which circulate throughout the\nEnglish-speaking world, because I have occasionally written a critical\nwork (always grossly misrepresented in the Catholic press) about the\nCatholic Church. I never belonged to the Catholic priesthood: I was\ndischarged from it for fraud: I left it in order to marry a nun I had\nseduced: and so on. Only the lighter of these things are put in print,\nand then always with the name omitted. Only a few months ago a priest\n(and Education-Councillor) in a Scottish town gravely assured a\nschoolmistress, in the presence of an acquaintance of mine, that his\nChurch held unshakable proofs of my vicious ways. As usual, my request\nthat they would say so in print was ignored. Most ex-priests have the\nsame experience. One of the most refined and religious of these\nseceders, a man who became a most respected professor at Oxford, was\npursued by the calumny (never printed) that he had shown indecent\nphotographs to servant-girls!\n\nThis tactic of the Church militant is happily so notorious that little\nharm is done among the general public, but Catholics are gravely\ndeluded, in the hope that they will be induced to refrain from reading\nany except their own mendacious literature.\n\nYet one of the most familiar themes of the men who pursue this tactic\nis that they alone can inspire high character! Notoriously insincere\nin their professions, teachers of doctrines which the higher culture\nof our time and many of their own leading scholars condemn, living in\nan atmosphere of untruth and unreality, relying on a literature which\nis generally as indifferent to truth as it is to grace, unscrupulously\nrepeating idle slanders of their opponents, they ask us to believe\nthat they are genuinely concerned about the future of society if we\ncontinue to reject their authority. It is not strange that the great\ncities of the modern world are unmoved by their dirges.\n\nThe third point of my indictment is that the clergy have forged the\nhistorical credentials by which they lay claim to our respect. I have\nalready observed that their version of the history of Europe is\npeculiar to their own literature, and I have elsewhere (_The Bible in\nEurope_) shown in detail how worthless it is. The \"conversion\" of\nEurope to Christianity in the fourth century was, as every historian\nof the period shows, an enforcement of the new religion on Europe by\nimperial authority, accompanied by the most violent and bloody\nrepression of all other religions. We then have the witness of\ncontemporary Christian writers that this \"conversion\" was followed\nby a general moral and intellectual decline. The great reforms which\nRome had inaugurated were destroyed, and Europe sank into the\nignorance, superstition, and grossness of the Middle Ages. It is quite\ntrue that the triumph of Christianity coincided with the overthrow of\ncivilisation by the northern tribes, but the Teutonic tribes were not\ninferior to the Arabs or Turks (whom Mohammedanism civilised in the\ncourse of a century or two), and the Church soon obtained despotic\npower over them. The Eastern Empire, I may add, was _not_ dominated by\nthe barbarians, yet it also suffered a grave moral and intellectual\ndecline. The fact is, that the clergy made no effort to induce the\nbarbarians to restore the old school-system, to reconstruct the Roman\nlaw, to free the slaves (and, later, the serfs), to adjust their high\nnative ideal of womanhood to the new social order, or to rebuild the\nfine civic and philanthropic system of the Romans. Culture fell so low\nthat the very promising germs of later Greek science were allowed to\ndie, and nearly the whole of the surviving Greek literature was\nunknown in Europe for many centuries. The trade in spurious relics,\nthe rapacity and unscrupulousness of the Papacy, the coarseness of the\nnobles and people, and the general sexual licence of priests and monks\nwere almost incredible.\n\nThis dark age began to receive the first rays of new light in the\neleventh and twelfth centuries, and historians are agreed that the new\nlight came from the civilisation of the Spanish Moors. This it was\nthat, by introducing Greek literature and its Arab commentators, led\nto the early revival of science. But the cult of the grossest relics\nand superstitions continued, and the clergy repressed, or inspired\nrulers to repress, all dissent with more ferocity than ever. During\nthe one general persecution of the early Christians by the Romans\nabout two thousand had suffered for the faith; and only a few hundreds\ncan be added from the earlier sporadic persecutions. But within fifty\nyears of the establishment of Christianity in the Empire, tens of\nthousands of Donatists, Manich\u00e6ans, Arians, Pagans, etc., were done\nto death, and hundreds of thousands ruined or maltreated, by the\ntriumphant Christians. In later centuries it was the turn of\nMonophysites, Monothelites, etc., and in the first quarter of the\nthirteenth century alone more than a million heretics were done to\ndeath in Languedoc. If the Jews and witches and others who suffered on\nreligious grounds be added, the \"butcher's bill\" of the new\nreligion passes ten millions; and beyond these are the countless\nmillions of those who suffered something less than death.\n\nWe look back to-day with feelings of horror on this ghastly carnage,\nespecially when we remember the absurd character of the doctrines\nwhich the heretics assailed and the immorality of the clergy and monks\nwho were primarily responsible for the executions and massacres. But\nthis savage repression of independent thought had consequences of an\neven more disastrous nature on European civilisation. It not only\nremoved from the community many of the more courageous and more\nintelligent stocks, but it intimidated others from using their powers,\nexcept in the futile argumentation of the Schoolmen. The result was a\nprolonged suspension of the development of the higher culture which\nwas destined to give Europe its supremacy. It will hardly be doubted\nto-day that this culture was contained in the scientific works of the\nGreeks, especially the Alexandrian Greeks. The Arabs brought this\nculture to Spain, and, chiefly through the mediation of the Jews, it\nwas slowly introduced into Europe and inspired such scholars as\nGilbert, Roger Bacon, Albert the Great, and Copernicus. Physics,\nchemistry, and medicine began their development. But the fate of Roger\nBacon and Albert and Vesalius sufficiently reminds us of the\nChurch's attitude toward the new culture, and the story of the\nhampering of intellectual progress in the exact study of nature has\nbeen repeatedly told. The scholastic fever, which had absorbed the\nenergies of most of the acutest minds in Europe, had to disappear, and\nthe power of the Church to be enfeebled, before the civilisation of\nEurope could advance.\n\nThe further introduction of Greek literature, when the Turks drove the\nGreeks from Constantinople, the invention of printing, the expansion\nof commerce and navigation, and the weakening of Church-authority by\nthe Reformation, opened the modern phase of the development of\nEuropean civilisation. It is only for the last of these changes that a\nsection of the clergy may plausibly claim our gratitude, and even here\nwe must make reserves. The share of the laity in the Reformation was\ngreater than the share of the clergy, and the aim of the Reformed\nclergy was by no means to free and stimulate the intelligence of\nEurope. They frowned on lay culture, and burned their opponents, as\ninhumanly as the Roman priests did. It was not until the growth of\nsects had further enfeebled ecclesiastical authority, and a large body\nof lay scholars had arisen, that Europe became civilised, even in a\ngenerous sense of the word. Then science and philosophy and history\ngrew to the proportions which distinguish \"modern times,\" and a\nresolute social and humanitarian movement began to remove those\nappalling injustices of the industrial and political order which the\nclergy had witnessed in silence for more than a thousand years.\n\nI repeat that this is not an eccentric view of the development of\nEuropean civilisation, but the view taken by historians ever since\ntheir science was emancipated from clerical control. The view which\nthe clergy still sedulously propagate, that the Christian religion\ninspired the civilisation of Europe, is the most preposterous\nhistorical sham which we still entertain. It is unintelligible how a\nscholar like Mr. Bryce can give even a qualified support to it. In the\nminds of most people it is a pitiful confusion of ideas associated\nwith one of the most elementary fallacies known to the logician. The\nfallacy is the syllogism which suffices for the majority of the\nfaithful: Europe is the great centre of civilisation, Europe was\nChristian during the development of this civilisation, therefore\nChristianity was the inspirer of the civilisation. The inference is\nfoolish enough in itself, but it becomes ludicrous when we reflect on\nthe facts. Europe was civilised before it became Christian; it\ninherited all the best culture and experience of Egypt, Mesopotamia,\nPersia, Greece, and Rome. But Europe lost its civilisation when it\nbecame Christian, very largely because the new religion found culture\ndangerous to its superstitions and repressed it. And Europe owes its\nreturn to civilisation to the revival of pagan ideas, and it advances\nin civilisation in proportion as it discards Christianity.\n\nThe confusion of ideas is just as foolish as the fallacy. Europe is\n\"great\" in two very different senses. Most of the white nations\nare \"great\" in the vastness of their territory and the wealth they\nhave derived from subject peoples. To connect this form of greatness\nwith the Sermon on the Mount is audacious: it is a practice which\nreally belongs to the age when English merchants who waxed fat on the\nnegro-slave trade could complacently give the name \"Jesus\" to\ntheir vessels. This form of greatness frankly rested on buccaneering.\nEurope is great also in intellectual development, with the scientific\nand technical achievements to which this has led. We need not ask what\nparticular Christian sentiment has inspired this; we know too well the\nshare the clergy have had in repressing it.\n\nLastly, Europe is great in the cultivation of humane sentiment and the\nendeavour to practise social justice. It is here that the clergy\nusually claim their usefulness; and there is hardly a bolder\nmis-statement in their literature than this. The New Testament\ncontains not a single moral sentiment that was unknown to the Greeks\nand Romans, and to the later Jews: the moral sentiments of the New\nTestament are so vague and elementary that not a single priest\ndenounced slavery for nine hundred years, and not a Church has\ndenounced war for more than eighteen hundred years: the Christian\nethic was so uninspiring that Europe reeked with vice and crime and\nwar and social injustice until the end of the eighteenth or beginning\nof the nineteenth century: when the reform began, in the nineteenth\ncentury, hardly a single priest aided it (until it had won millions of\nadherents), and the bishops almost unanimously opposed it: and the\nhumanitarianism of modern times is an almost exclusively lay movement,\ngaining power and fervour in proportion as we sweep the clergy aside.\nEurope was civilised under the Roman and Greek pagans, and it is\ncivilised, in the same broad sense, under the modern pagans; it was\nnot civilised in the intervening period, and the worst features of its\nlife to-day are, not recent outgrowths, but inheritances from the\nChristian past.\n\nThe pleas which some of the clergy, who know a little history, urge\nagainst this plain generalisation of the historical facts are curious.\nThe majority, of course, knowing nothing of history, repeat the\nconventional untruths, but a few would tell us that this modern\nhumanitarianism is due to a belated appreciation of the Christian\nethic. Are justice, sympathy, truthfulness, kindness, and honour\nconfined to the Christian ethic? Was there ever a great moralist, or a\nmature civilisation, which failed to appreciate them? Is not the\nmodern humanitarian movement plainly characterised by a determination\nto do good to men, not for a reward in heaven or because Christ (like\nso many others) enjoined it, but because you cannot have a fine mind\nand character without experiencing this determination? Were there, in\nthe fifteen hundred years of Christian domination, not enough men with\nintelligence enough to perceive the practical bearing of Christ's\nethic? Have these clerical writers frankly abandoned the claim that\nthe \"Spirit of God\" guided their predecessors during those fifteen\ncenturies? And have they read a line of the modern literature which\nshows that there is not one humane sentiment in the Gospels that was\nnot well known to the Jews before the time of Christ?\n\nThe case of the clergy is a tissue of sophistry and untruth from\nbeginning to end. They have done nothing as a body for European\ncivilisation, in proportion to their power and leisure and resources.\nThey did not even teach it chastity. They hindered the development of\nthe culture which it vitally needed, and dissipated its finest\nintelligence in the tilling of barren soil. They fought fiercely for\ntheir own wealth and power, and were for fifteen hundred years a\nmighty parasitic growth on the working community. They kept the\nbandage of illiteracy on the eyes of ninety per cent. of their people\nfor fifteen hundred years, and dined merrily with the nobles who\nexploited the people. They exacted respect in virtue of their supposed\nclose communion with an all-holy God; and they were themselves,\nespecially in their highest representatives, immoral and hypocritical\nin an appalling proportion, were brutal in coercing their critics,\nwere traffickers in spurious and sordid relics, and were, when noble\nmen and women at last won liberty from them, ignorant, slanderous, and\ncareless of truth as no reputable body of laymen would stoop to\nbecome. Their record is as poor as their opportunity was great, and\nthe modern world is, in strict proportion to the growth of education,\npassing disdainfully by the open doors of their churches. Of the\ntwelve million inhabitants of the three greatest cities of Europe\nhardly two millions attend church; and if it were not for the\nincessant, feverish, and highly organised efforts of the clergy\nthemselves, churchgoing would show a further rapid and enormous\nshrinkage. Yet even in this last phase we find them mumbling to\nill-instructed congregations about their glorious record in Europe\n(crowned by a war of four hundred million people), about the\nwickedness of an age which prefers the indulgence of its passions to\ntheir serene guidance, and about the terrible doom which they foresee\nfor Europe if it does not return to its medieval guardians.\n\nAs I observed in dealing with the political organisation, Christianity\nis not a set of ideas but a wealthy and powerful corporation. Once it\nwas a body of men holding certain beliefs: now it is, in essence, an\norganisation for the enforcement of those beliefs. It is, in the main,\nthis professional or corporate interest which sustains Christianity in\nEurope: but it is losing heavily. I have shown (_Decay of the Church\nof Rome_) that the oldest branch of the Church has lost about a\nhundred million followers in a hundred years. I do not think that the\nProtestant Churches, being more progressive and less offensive in\ntheir tactics, have lost so heavily, but the extraordinary decay of\nchurchgoing in cities like Berlin, London, and New York is\nsuggestive. In spite of all the tricks and devices of the clergy--the\nvestments and concerts, the matrimonial agencies and philanthropic\ncoercion, the Y.M.C.A.'s and P.S.A.'s and all the rest--the people\nstill fall away. No proof could be formulated to-day that even the\nmajority of the people of Europe are Christians.\n\nThe thoughtful minority in the religious world are retreating upon the\nliberal theism which so many of our cultural leaders profess, or upon\nsome even more vague mysticism. Into this further province it is not\nmy intention to go. The world will, no doubt, long remain divided in\nopinion, or in sentiment, on fundamental religious issues, and for my\npractical purpose this difference is of no account. There is, however,\none last consideration put forward by the clergy which it may be\nuseful to consider.\n\nIt is represented that we are in danger of a triumph of\n\"materialism,\" and it is therefore wise to cling, in spite of\ntheir errors, to the Churches which so solidly represent\n\"spiritualism.\" Since many people have regarded me as peculiarly\nexposed to this danger of falling under the evil spell of\n\"materialism,\" I have made eager inquiries among spiritualist\nwriters as to the nature of \"spirit.\" I am still hopefully\ninquiring. Most of the an\u00e6mic mystics who gush over the word cannot\ntell you what it means. They have a vague conviction that the\nspiritual is immensely more important and productive of good than the\nmaterial, and that therefore materialism is the most appalling blight\nthat can fall on a nation. These prophets of evil are, as I have\npreviously observed, not strong in history. They do not explain how\nConfucianism (which Sir Edwin Arnold, accurately enough, calls\nmaterialism) proved so great an inspiration in China and Japan: how\nthe Stoics (who refused utterly to believe in spirit) wrought so much\ngood and inspired so fine a character at Rome: or how this\nmaterialistic age of ours is so idealistic. They know only that we\nmust at all costs cultivate the spiritual--read spiritual writers,\nrespect spiritual persons, encourage spiritual clergymen and artists\nand actors--and loathe materialism from the bottom of our hearts. And\nit is therefore quite natural to suppose that all that is precious in\nlife and progress depends on the belief in the existence of\n\"spirits.\"\n\nIn point of fact, we have here entangled ourselves in an extraordinary\nconfusion. The cultivation of intelligence, fine sentiment, and\nstraight character has nothing whatever to do with the question\nwhether the mind of man is or is not divisible into parts, or has or\nhas not \"inertia\": which are the only philosophic distinctions\nbetween matter and spirit that I have discovered. The tradition of the\nspirituality of the mind is responsible for this confusion. _If_ the\nmind is a spirit, then spirit is assuredly the source of the finest\nthings in life, and is far superior to matter. But that is just the\nquestion at issue; and it really does not matter two pins for\npractical purposes whether the mind is extended and inert (in the\nscientific sense), or unextended and devoid of inertia. One has only\nto substitute clear conceptions for vague terms, and the whole\ncontroversy is reduced to absurdity. Whichever side wins in the\nacademic battle about the nature of mind, it remains as true as ever\nthat the cultivation of mind is one of the most important aims that\nmen can set up. Why on earth should we be less disposed to cultivate\nthe mind of the race if some sudden turn of scientific advance were to\nprove it \"a function of the brain\"? It remains true that our race\nowes the position it occupies entirely to mind: that our civilisation\nowes its ascendancy over barbarism to mind: and that we rely entirely\non the further cultivation of mind--of intelligence, will, and\nemotion--to destroy those shams which impede our progress and curtail\nour prosperity and happiness. It is ludicrous to say that we cannot\nthus cultivate mind unless we believe it to be an indivisible and\nincomprehensible and indefinable something. It would, in fact, be less\nabsurd to say that we should have more confidence in our power to\ncultivate mind if we regarded it as an organic function, subject to\ndefinite treatment.\n\nAs to the lapse of a belief in personal immortality, it is not less\nabsurd to say that this would paralyse our efforts. As Ruskin says on\nthe point: \"The shortness of life is not, to any rational person, a\nconclusive reason for wasting the space of it which may be granted\nhim.\" That magnificent preface to _The Crown of Wild Olive_ ought\nlong ago to have silenced these dismal sophists. The fact is, that\nthis age of ours, in proportion as it grows indifferent to the old\nlegends and the appeals of the clergy, rises toward heights which man\nnever climbed before. The clergy are most amusingly puzzled. Popes\ntell us that we are children of perdition, reeling into an earthly\nabyss, to say nothing of a deeper beyond: archbishops say that we are\njust beginning to realise the true import of Christ's teaching. The\ncandid man or woman will look searchingly for himself or herself into\nthe heart of our age, and, if he or she have an accurate knowledge of\nearlier ages, will recognise that it throbs with a human idealism,\ntenderness, and sympathy which have been unknown in Europe since the\nold pagans departed.\n\nLet me end on that note. The religious person will close this work, if\nhe perseveres to the end, with a series of horrified exclamations.\nSocialism! Immoralism! Republicanism! Materialism! Malthusianism! I\nshudder under the shower of horrid epithets, yet would ask this\noutraged reader to forget \"'isms\" for a moment and consider a\nsimple statement of the human faith I here present.\n\nThe ideals which I hold in supreme regard are truth in our beliefs and\nstatements, justice and generosity in our actions, the co-operation of\nall men to make the earth happier. I am in temperament no hedonist.\nThirty years of assiduous study, of much severe trial, of stoical\nendurance have left me more or less insensible to what men and women\nusually call happiness. My personal desires are sated in that I may,\nin circumstances of peace and modest comfort, devote myself to\nintellectual labour and the employment in the cause of progress of\nsuch influence as I have. I see no purpose imposed on life, and I\ntherefore conclude that men and women are free to put such purpose on\ntheir collective life as they deem advisable. No purpose seems to be\nwiser, grander, or more inspiring than that they should seek to\nassuage the last pang of remediable pain and bring sunshine into the\ndark places of the earth. For me there is no heaven; and therefore the\nspectacle of those thousands passing daily and nightly into the\nsilence, after lives of pain, misery, or brutality, while we cling to\nthe barbaric traditions or ill-devised institutions that have come\ndown to us, is an intolerable goad. Let us have criticism and scrutiny\nof all that we do and all that we believe; and let us have courage to\nreject all that we think false and purify all that we find corrupted.\nLet us assert that mighty power of which we are conscious; and, if it\ntake ages to undo all the errors of the past and agree upon a plan of\na regenerated earth, let us at least strive to awaken men to a\nconsciousness of their power and of the evils they have to remove.\nThese are my suggestions of what is wrong in life and how it may be\nrighted. It may be materialism, this plain human gospel of mine; but\nit seems to me that, if it could be carried into effect, there would\nspread gradually over this earth such joy and freedom and prosperity\nas men's prophets have babbled of in their dying dreams.\n\n[The End]\n\nTRANSCRIBER'S NOTES.\n\nAlterations to the text:\n\nA few spelling corrections.\n\n[End of Book]","title":"The Tyranny of Shams","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":74999}